Workers of the world unite!
Socialism allows for both public and private ownership, individual freedoms, and democratic decision-making, while still aiming for social equality. Communism, in contrast, tends to involve total state control and often limits personal freedoms.
Tell me you’ve never read anything about communism that wasn’t written by anti-communists without telling me you’ve never read anything about communism that wasn’t written by anti-communists.
Both Capitalism and Socialism have room for public and private ownership, the difference is which sector controls the state, large firms, and key industries. The Nordic Countries are dominated by Private Capital, ie it is Capitalist, while the PRC is dominated by Public Ownership, ie it is Socialist.
Communism limits the personal freedoms of the bourgeoisie. All Communism is, is a more developed and global form of Socialism, where the small firms that once were private have all grown into the public sector or collapsed.
All this things sound great, we just need humanity to not be shitty to each other.
Luigi’s hand doesn’t look anything like that. Someone fix this meme
Capitalism is a system and just that, it has no moral, therefore cannot be evil. The red hand without the ussr symbol would make this image more unified.
I’d say 1 person owning most of the money made at the company is the problem
To solve it everyone just needs to form or join a private unionized cooperative that doesn’t go on stock market for sustainable growth and so everyone at the company is making a lot of money too
Then collectively you all grow the pot that is available for all of you. Better to all be making 1,000,000 each and then grow it together to become 10,000,000-100,000,000+ for each of you
That is the root issue. Not enough of that
This doesn’t solve the systemic pressures within Capitalism, nor does it describe how to get from A to B. Your idea still depends on your one firm outcompeting other firms, which is difficult in saturated markets.
I recommend you look into Marxist theory, I have some recommendations I can make.
Removed by mod
That’s the plan! Though I want to aid in turning my own country Communist, as that would benefit the most people globally, or at least take down the US Empire.
Ableism aint cool either.
Read my comment on this post. Think Capitalism mixed with Socialism would be good alternative for everyone
I responded to it, but I want to respond to this as well. There’s really no such thing as “mixing” Capitalism with Socialism. Private and Public property can be mixed, but what determines Capitalism or Socialism is if the former is the principle aspect of the economy, or the latter. By principle, I mean which controls the state, large firms, and key industries.
And communism doesn’t work because we’re selfish
If we accepted the arguments that humans are selfish, then it’s an argument for communism and not against it. We should be creating social systems that encourage socially positive behavior and inhibit socially destructive behavior. Capitalism is like taking a drunk to a happy hour at the bar. The fact that people keep repeating this trope shows complete and utter lack of critical thinking on their part.
Why?
Yeah, there’s nothing worse than a bunch of billionaire shitheads, using the media they control to keep the lower classes fighting with each other while they . . . the rich . . . run off with all the farking money. Oh wait, that’s what’s going on Russia, too.
There are no “good guys” here. Just billionaire assholes exploiting everybody.
The Russian Federation ceased being Socialist in the early 90s, the Hammer and Sickle is a symbol of Marxism. Not sure what your point is.
The point is that it’s a class war. It always has been. It’s not about “socialism vs capitalism” or “liberals vs conservatives” or The Romulans vs The Federation. It’s about billionaires vs everybody else. It’s about the cluefull vs the clueless.
Class War is a fundamental part of the Socialist canon, though, while Capitalism affirms that it is unnecessary.
Further, a bit nitpicky, but I don’t like framing it as “cluefull vs clueless.” People’s ideas are a product of their material conditions, we shouldn’t downtalk those who don’t know more.
The people who told you what socialism or capitalism is, LIED to you. “The good of the people” is a noble-sounding goal. But the reality is that the people who deliberately seek power are . . . for the most part . . . vain, greedy, brutal assholes.
I don’t think Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc were lying to me when discussing what they wanted to implement and how Socialism and Capitalism function. I don’t think reading speeches and writings of Deng Xiapoing, Xi Jinping, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Joseph Stalin, Kim Il Sung, Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, or other leaders of AES states were lying about their intended goals or economic policies either.
I genuinely don’t understand what you are trying to say here. Are you rejecting analysis of Political Economy, in favor of vibes-based social movements? Genuinely.
Karl Marx said a lot of things about socialism and collectivism a hundred years ago, but he’s not in charge anymore. The rich oligarchs who replaced him are saying this. You keep saying “but they SAID they were SOCIALISTS” and all I see is Sponge Bob’s eyes, filling up with tears because he just can’t believe that some rich assholes are lying to him.
We have people in this country who claim to be “christians” who literally elected the anti-christ. Trump embodies ALL the seven deadly sins, but those folks are just fine with it. So let’s quit pretending that belief systems can’t be exploited.
Karl Marx was never “in charge.” He developed a framework for analyzing Political Economy in a manner useful for the Proletariat to identify the manner in which we are exploited, and how we may go about defeating the Bourgeoisie. There are no rich oligarchs replacing Marx.
Belief systems certainly can be exploited, but that isn’t the point you are making here. Your point is that we should disregard analysis of Political Economy in favor of vibes-based action. If you don’t do the effort of studying Political Economy, any conclusions you come to will be based on shaky foundations, rather than throwing theory aside, we need to weild it to guide correct practice.
Funny enough, Mao described your error over half a century ago, in On Practice:
The second point is that knowledge needs to be deepened, that the perceptual stage of knowledge needs to be developed to the rational stage – this is the dialectics of the theory of knowledge.[5] To think that knowledge can stop at the lower, perceptual stage and that perceptual knowledge alone is reliable while rational knowledge is not, would be to repeat the historical error of “empiricism”. This theory errs in failing to understand that, although the data of perception reflect certain realities in the objective world (I am not speaking here of idealist empiricism which confines experience to so-called introspection), they are merely one-sided and superficial, reflecting things incompletely and not reflecting their essence. Fully to reflect a thing in its totality, to reflect its essence, to reflect its inherent laws, it is necessary through the exercise of thought to reconstruct the rich data of sense perception, discarding the dross and selecting the essential, eliminating the false and retaining the true, proceeding from the one to the other and from the outside to the inside, in order to form a system of concepts and theories – it is necessary to make a leap from perceptual to rational knowledge. Such reconstructed knowledge is not more empty or more unreliable; on the contrary, whatever has been scientifically reconstructed in the process of cognition, on the basis of practice, reflects objective reality, as Lenin said, more deeply, more truly, more fully. As against this, vulgar “practical men” respect experience but despise theory, and therefore cannot have a comprehensive view of an entire objective process, lack clear direction and long-range perspective, and are complacent over occasional successes and glimpses of the truth. If such persons direct a revolution, they will lead it up a blind alley.
Yeah it’s the super rich vs everyone else.
Capitalism breeds fascism. As long as we have capitalism we will fight fascism. Communism is not the answer though nor is any extreme ideology. Social direct democracy or even sociocracy would be better systems.
Social democracy is an extreme ideology
Social Democracy retains Private Ownership as the principle aspect of its economy, ergo its still Capitalist. Fascism isn’t distinct from Capitalism, but Capitalism in certain circumstances, ie when it needs to put on a mask and brutally protect itself from its own decay, before taking off the mask and pretending it’s something else, ie it keeps Capitalism’s record “clean.”
Further, being radical does not equal being wrong. Distance from the status quo does not mean it is not correct, we need to judge legitimately the merits of Socialism/Communism and not just say they are too radical.
Not necessarily. A true sociocracy would value corporations on a system of social good. Not, as now, a measure of how much spare money it has after trade and costs. It should also be very possible to run corporations as co-operatives which spread ownership among the workers.
Unless the Proletariat has control of the state, and thus can implement a “corporation behavior credit score” like in the PRC that isn’t in control of private interests, you will see corporations just lobby and get what they want that way. Socialism remains necessary, which is the first step to Communism.
Secondly, cooperative ownership is nice, but it doesn’t stop the natural centralizing of markets or prove more efficient than public ownership and planning at higher levels of development.
Really, it sounds like you would like the PRC’s model of economy. Companies like Huawei are worker-owned, the Proletariat has control over the state and thus profit isn’t the central guiding factor of the economy, and there are checks in place to punish corporations that go against benchmarks and metrics for “good” vs “bad” behavior.
This is the “extreme ideology” you said doesn’t work.
Of course something simillar to Switzerland’s model.
“X is good, Y is bad.” It rarely is that simple.
Cool agitprop posters like what OP posted rarely give you a particularly nuanced perspective due to their limited space. The intended effect is to spark conversation, not to beam Marxism into the heads of anyone who sees it.
