I swear bro the next capitalism actually works, bro trust me, bro without capitalism you wouldn’t have iphones bro.
bro i promise, with social democracy capitalism is equalitarian. yes bro i promise. bro, no more oppression! please don’t look at the global south
bro capitalism is the best we’ve got, trust me bro despite its flaws it’s the only one that works bro, bro just accept this as truth, bro don’t question it bro.
The problem is that in order to unite the left it is necessary to agree to the ideological level, very difficult, to unite the right it needs just a briefcase of money.
I’ve never come across anyone who calls themselves a “Stalinist.” Maybe that’s what some horseshoe theorists call Marxist-Leninists.
Which movie is this from?
Shaun of the Dead, but this particular scene is nothing like the meme is portraying it as. In fact, the two images arent even from the same scene.
I’m pretty sure it’s Shaun of the Dead.
Liberalism and capitalism is the best system in the world.
for the rich? absolutely.
For every single person
just because we have shiny new inventions every year doesnt mean its working for everyone. the entire system of capitalism is based on taking advantage of the poor. to the point of killing them directly and indirectly en mass, through war and poverty related illness. so that the rich can own more property and assets.
its a horrible system.
Yeah… thats not what capitalism is based off but a nice vibes based analysis none the less.
then why is the american military the largest expenditure by the US government? why does the military industrial complex exist? why does the “richest nation on earth” have the largest debt, no free healthcare, a massive homeless population, but also the most billionaires? why do they survive by exploiting third world countries where people starve to death daily? why do they constantly undermine socialist and communist movements in other countries that have valuable resources? going so far as to assassinate popular leaders and trading them for puppet dictators?
thats literally capitalism living off the backs of the poor, and murdering them for profit, and they have to keep them poor so they can take advantage of them. thats why capitalism hates unions, labour laws, and social reform at home and abroad. it effects the bottom line and maximum profit margins. its inherent in the system, and a part of its structure. its what allows it to “work” in the first place. and whenever capitalism has its way, unchecked, the poor suffer and die as a result. through no fault of their own besides being born into an unequal society, with little or no opportunity because of their lack of starting capital, compared to the wealthier participants in the same system.
i implore you to read almost any book on american history and economics. the US itself was built on genocide and slavery for the purpose of profit, under the guise of freedom. and that simply evolved into different forms over the years, its still prevalent to this day.
i wish you well on your journey of self education on this topic.
then why is the american military the largest expenditure by the US government?
Its not and the fact you couldnt even do basic research to prevent parroting an obviously incorrect fact is shocking. Like I said before, your analysis is vibes based not reality based.
the department of defence spending is the single largest catagory within discretionary spending. 842 billion in 2024 alone. easily verifiable if you cared enough to even type it into google. or use the wayback machine for pre trump admin white washing of .gov websites if you like it raw. dont even attempt to lump in social security and medicaid together along with several other discretionary spending categories like a talking head at fox news would to make your “point”, thats misinformation, or straight up confusion on your part.
this isnt a vibe, its a fact. so, with all do respect, perhaps practice what you preach, and do your research.
For the bourgeoisie, perhaps, but only temporarily. We can see that out of every country right now that it’s the Socialist PRC that is making the most dramatic and rapid improvements and growth.
It’s interesting how many China stans have popped up in the past few weeks.
That’s the normal stance on Lemmy.
It was founded by communists, so you’d better get used to it
Honestly I don’t notice much of that.
Plenty of right-wingers here.
There’s a huge difference between capitalism and oligarchy. What we have is oligarchy. All the worst parts of capitalism. 19th century robber-baron “capitalism.”
❌❌❌
Capitalist economic systems will inevitably lead to oligarchy
It leads to corporatism, the most important aspect of fascism.
Wonder why capitalist countries never mention that?
The “oligarchy” of today is not distinct from Capitalism, but Capitalism at a later stage in its life.
Capitalism today looks nothing like capitalism in the 1950s. Back then, a family could easily survive on the income of one person. With money left over to pay for college education, a car and a house.
That is not the situation today, where most Americans have NO retirement savings. Unless you’re redefining what capitalism IS, then that’s a problem caused by the people in charge (oligarchs).
You literally do not know what capitalism is. Capitalism is not commerce or economy, capitalism is a social relation system that is defined by private ownership of the means of production and prioritizes commodity production for profit by way of wage labor and class antagonism. Maybe you should read more before you state your factually incorrect statements.
Americans really don’t understand that they aren’t the only country on earth
The erosion of safety nets is a product of ever-further monopolization and the dissolution of the USSR, as well as the liberation of many colonies. I am not redefining Capitalism, the Capitalism we have today is the natural following point of earlier Capitalism.
Same underlying system, different levels and scale.
That is not the situation today, where most Americans have NO retirement savings. Unless you’re redefining what capitalism IS, then that’s a problem caused by the people in charge (oligarchs).
Bananas were cheap too… because Western [capitalist!!!] imperialism supported fascist death squads in Latin America who sold out their country to United Fruit [a capitalist corporation]. It’s a whole system of oppression, not just the WASPs you see on Mad Men reruns.
You are the one who is deeply confused.
Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Thinking there was no oligarchy when C. Wright Mills was writing The Power Elite shows that you are not only confused about economic theory, but misinformed about the history of the US as well.
Serious question: has communism ever been proved to work at scale? (not communist regimes, the communist ideology)
Capitalism is a global system, it is based on exchange value and things being produced and sold for a profit, not for use (which is known as commodity production), and if you want to trade internationally, you have to follow this capitalist mode of production. Communism, on the other hand, aims to abolish the production of commodities (money included) and instead produce goods for use. Notice how these two systems differ so much, international trade between actual communist and capitalist countries becomes impossible given how differently they value things.
Now consider how today’s capitalist nations are so dependent on trade, and it’s because trade allows nations to prosper, to grow, to have increased standards of living and gives the nations access to materials they otherwise couldn’t have produced within their local borders. If a nation goes full isolationist, it loses access to all of that and the nation becomes crippled.
So there’s three ways for communist countries to go about the global capitalist system:
-
Go full isolationist, which would cripple a country substantially.
-
Participate in the capitalist market, meaning the country would be forced to produce commodities and participate in capital exchange which would make them, in one definition or another, capitalist. This also heavily risks the country to fall into full capitalism with time (as seen historically).
-
Support worker movements internationally en masse and hope they succeed with achieving their revolutions. If they succeed, only then can exchange value be safely abolished, goods be produced for use instead of profit, and international socialist/communist trade can actually happen with people having their needs met.
It’s clear that international communist revolution is pretty much the only viable way forward, and the only opportunity to do so failed (with Spartacist uprising, Hungrarian Soviet Republic, etc being crushed, leaving USSR standing pretty much alone).
So to answer your question with all this nonsensical wall of text in mind, no. Actual communist/socialist mode of production has never existed (therefore whether communist ideology works hasn’t been proven), as any experiments so far had essentially been capitalist.
This isn’t quite accurate. If you maintain public control over the large firms and industries, and the proletariat controls the state, you remain on the Socialist road. Markets themselves are not necessarily Capitalism.
Communism must be global, but we can’t make a fully publicly owned economy simply by declaring private property illegal, the USSR didn’t even manage to do that.
If you maintain public control over the large firms and industries, and the proletariat controls the state, you remain on the Socialist road.
Agree, there has to be DOTP directly after the revolution which has to retain some capitalist features, mostly for economic survival purposes.
However, once the military struggle against capitalists are over and economy is sufficiently reorganized, a country has to quickly abolish the value form and actually turn to a socialist mode of production, else it risks either backpedaling to capitalism and/or turning revisionist. This is precisely what happened to USSR, given how they couldn’t transition to socialist mode of production due to their peasant problem + Stalin’s delusions of “Socialism in one state”.
If there’s an active maintenance in post-revolutionary period of capitalist mode of production, then the country is capitalist even if the production is nationalized or owned by workers.
Markets themselves are not necessarily Capitalism.
Historically markets predate Capitalism, so yes, but they’re never socialist or communist given how socialist mode of production does away with commodity production. If commodity production is abolished, then commodity exchange (markets) can no longer exist. This does mean that market socialism is capitalist as commodity production remains, the law of value remains, all that’s different when compared to Capitalism is that the state regulates it which doesn’t magically make it socialist.
I think there’s a problem in analysis of time scales, and the fundamental role contradictions play, dialectically.
If, by “millitary struggle against Capitalists” you mean the immediate revolution and establishment of the DotP, there is then a long and protracted process of building up to a fully publicly owned economy. You cannot achieve this through fiat, it must be developed towards, and markets remain the most effective method of moving from low to high levels of development. You cannot simply abolish the value form with a stroke of a pen, black markets emerge for that which is not provided. Erasing the commodity form is a material and historical process, not a legalistic one.
Socialism in one country is undeniably correct. Had Trotsky’s permanent revolution been adopted, ie abandoning the buildup of Socialism domestically in favor of exporting revolution abroad, we would have had more failed revolutions and the USSR would have been crushed due to a lack of development. The very foundation of Permanent Revolution is on the assumption that the peasantry can only temporarily align with the Proletariat, which ended up being proven false when the Soviet system solidified, rather than fell apart in the first few years.
The biggest issue here, however, is your adoption of the “One Drop Rule.” I wrote a post on the subject, but to simplify, the concept that if some degree of Private Property exists the entire system is Capitalist goes against all notions of Dialectical Materialism and throws away the entire Materialist basis for Socialism in the first place. Just as Public Property in the US is not Socialist, Private Property in a Socialist system does not mean the system is Capitalist.
All systems have contradictions. What matters most is which class is resolving the contradictions via the State, the Proletariat, or the Bourgeoisie. If the large firms, key industries, and State are firmly in the hands of the Proletariat, the system is on the Socialist road. We cannot abolish the small manufacturer or firms, we must develop out of them. The process of building towards Communism through Socialism is through the continuous resolution of these contradictions, as by necessary laws of physics they cannot be resolved legalistically, or with the stroke of a pen.
The idea that the Socialist Mode of Production is unique among all in that it is the only Mode of Production judged by purity, rather than the principle aspect, is an error in classification that ignores the real trajectories we observe in Socialist states like the PRC, which are increasing in Socialization of the economy over time. Rather, we can look all the way back to Marx for evidence to why this is true:
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i. e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.
I want you to look at the bolded word. Why did Marx say by degree? Did he think on day 1, businesses named A-C are nationalized, day 2 businesses D-E, etc etc? No. Marx believed that it is through nationalizing of the large firms that would be done immediately, and gradually as the small firms develop, they too can be folded into the public sector. The path to eliminated Private Property isn’t to make it illegal, but to develop out of it.
The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital;[43] the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
This is why, in the previous paragraph, Marx described public seizure in degrees, but raising the level of the productive forces as rapidly as possible.
China does have Billionaires, but these billionaires do not control key industries, nor vast megacorps. The number of billionaires is actually shrinking in the last few years. Instead, large firms and key industries are publicly owned, and small firms are privately owned. This is Marxism.
I also recommend What is Socialism? as its an excellent essay that goes more in-depth on the topics I went over.
-
No system has ever worked at scale. Capitalism is literally destroying the planet we live on, Feudalism wasn’t any better, and no other system was ever applied at such a scale.
Maybe the scale is the problem, and the Anarchists were right all along.(most) Anarchists don’t have a problem with scale, just with hierarchy. We can have democratic and free associations at any scale.
You can’t force your system onto every society and culture on earth, as Capitalism has done, when your system is Anarchism.
That’s true. Imperialist ideologies like capitalism or the state socialism of the CCCP have an advantage in spreading their influence globally. But there’s nothing in principle standing in the way of one world, one federation, a million tribes. Anarchism does scale quite the well in that regard
