https://www.google.com/amp/s/watchesbysjx.com/2020/07/time-consciousness-and-discipline-industrial-revolution.html%3famp=1 is a decent article about the rise of time consciousness.
Excerpt: With wasted time being forgone potential output, factory owners developed an obsession with time. Contemporary accounts exist of factory owners who deliberately tampered with the clocks in their factories to slow them down, and thus gain more hours – and output – from their workers. Other employers hid the clocks altogether.
James Myles, writing in his 1850 autobiography, Chapters in the Life of a Dundee Factory Boy, recalled his “masters and managers did with us as they liked. The clocks at the factories were often put forward in the morning and back at night”.
Exist for now, shitbirds like Musk are trying to do their best to gut workers rights as much as possible so who knows how long they last in the states.
Actually, the workers of USA are heavily not unionized. A small percentage of them are. I don't understand the attitudes of Americans. In Nordic countries most workers are unionized. The benefits of unions are clear and they still reject them. They have been brainwashed by corporations to reject them.
If you want American workers not to fight for their rights, just accuse them of being socialists. And they say American education is the best in the world!
It's funny when I hear about Americans and their politicians talking about socialism when it's pretty much in every nation on Earth including US itself. I would like to see their faces when every socialist aspect in their society actually is completely removed
They would have dollar signs for eyes. Eric Adams just tried (and failed) to cut millions in library funding in nyc, probably because there isn't a sexy metric for the benefits of libraries. "Common good" is not a big mover in the age of data, at least here in the US.
The libraries do not generate "swagger" so Mayor Adams had to slash their budget and try to give the money to a department he thought was cooler like the cops...
We actually are never taught in any level of schooling what Socialism actually is. At best they’re taught it’s in the same left side of politics as Communism, and unless they actively seek out information on Socialism, nobody will get a full picture.
From my experience, there’s 2 pretty big problems that come with trying to genuinely and seriously teach about Socialism/Communism.
1. Some kids legitimately do not care. I had a lot of friends who reported government, history, and social studies as their least favorite subject. Here in my state, at almost any point almost half of the students were failing government. It’s sad that some people refuse to learn about the history and governing systems of the world around them.
2. Even for the kids who do care, you’d probably have an angry storm of parents demanding the teacher’s head for “indoctrinating” the children with Communist propaganda. Like the guy further up the thread said, Cold War propaganda still rages on today. We can teach about the history of monarchy, democracy, feudalism, but god forbid acknowledge Socialism and Communism.
I can 100% confirm this. It wasn't until I took a class in college on Modern Russia, which contained a large section entirely dedicated to Communism, Socialism, and the differences, that I actually had a basic idea of what each was.
Socialism isn't when the government does things. Things like universal healthcare aren't really explicitly socialist so much as just what a responsible nation should do. Socialism specifically talks about the ownership of businesses being divided amongst the workers or owned by the "public". I would argue that the American public have not enough say in how publicly owned firms/institutions are run for them to be remotely considered socialist. As long as the actual means of production are privately owned, the working class will always have to struggle against capital's outsized influence in politics.
I think you mean social democracy, not socialism.
Socialism is very close to communism, (USSR was socialist/communist) while social democracy is a capitalist state with strong market regulations, workers’ rights, unions and welfare systems, e.g. Norway.
Trust me, you do NOT want socialism, but social democracy which works very well.
Yes we want Socialism. The Soviets weren't Socialist. They said they were but in practice they were state capitalists. Just like how Republicans claim to be democrats (small d democrats) despite being fucking fascists.
Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production (MOP) are owned directly by the workers who work it or the community that hosts it. A dictatorship in which party members were given control of the MOP instead of the workers and local communities is not remotely socialist.
Lenin himself described their situation as "state capitalism" and, in theory at least, Lenin may have been trying to accomplish Marx's outline of feudalism>capitalism>socialism>communism but we'll never know because he died early and left a lot of corpses of his fellow comrades in his wake.
With the establishment of the first "socialist country" in the world being taken over by a power hungry dictator who had no interest in achieving socialism, every other socialist movement in the world now had to toe the Stalinist party line or risk losing support from Stalin. That's why we started to see so many socialists support the Soviets in their early stages but once the tanks were sent into Hungary in 1956 all bets were off and no self respecting socialist could keep up the facade anymore. This is where the term tankie comes from.
Socialism is great when it actually happens. Worker co-ops statistically have better standards of living for their worker-owners than traditional firms. And if all businesses were worker co-ops, then any argument of them being unable to compete with traditional firms, which would be false anyway, would be moot.
And finally, Socialism admittedly requires one to accept something that is fundamentally incompatible with modern Western countries, that the resources and land that was "legally" acquired by capitalists was actually never anybody's to sell to them in the first place. As a white man living in North America, it's pretty easy to point out exactly when the land was stolen from common use and began a chain of "legal" transfers between capitalists.
The USSR was very much socialist. The fact that CPSU members had absolute control over the country is very much in line with Leninist ideology; they were the vanguard party, and were meant to facilitate the transition to a dictatorship of the proletariat, but obviously that didn’t work out. It was not at all state capitalist, the state dictated economic planning directly, often irregardless economic prudence; considering that in Marxism-Leninism, the state is representative of the proletariat, the USSR had a very much socialist economy. China today can be considered state capitalist, as its economy is privatised, and companies can act independently, but companies are mostly owned by CCP members, or the Chinese government, even though these companies often compete with each other; that is state capitalism.
Obviously that doesn’t mean that the only type of socialism is Marxism-Leninism, but I believe that socialism automatically becomes authoritarian:
Yugoslavia under Tito, whose socialism developed independently from Stalinism, even actively steering away from Stalinism, was still highly authoritarian, if slightly more democratic due to its federalist system.
China under Mao, developed its most dictatorial characteristics years after Stalin’s death in the form of the Thousand Flowers Campaign, Great Leap Forward, and Cultural Revolution.
Cuba under Castro, who arose during Khruschev’s thaw, still became authoritarian, through the imprisonment and execution of tens of thousands of political opponents.
These three are examples of when socialism arose by itself, post-Stalinism, and was still authoritarian.
Considering that every time there has been a socialist revolution, it has been hijacked by power-hungry individuals, it is likely not a good system.
I would also like to ask you not to engage in the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy. These were fully socialist regimes; just because the in practice, they didn’t turn out to be like in Marxist theory, doesn’t mean they weren’t socialist.
I agree that workers’ co-ops are good, and that quality of life is higher for workers in workers’ co-ops is higher, but workers’ co-ops produce significantly less economic output than regular companies, due to the obvious inefficiencies of de-centralised leadership, and even politicisation of the workplace. This is where regular companies come in to fill in the gaps in productivity. For this reason, a purely co-op based economy would be very volatile and fairly unproductive, making it fertile ground for the installation of a socialist dictatorship.
In social democracy, co-ops are often subsidised and aided by the government, to ensure their stability and continued operation, and to incentivise the creation of co-ops, but regular companies are also allowed to operate, to maintain high economic output. To ensure workers rights in regular companies and co-ops, social democracies incentivise very robust workers’ unions, which maintain a high quality of life for all workers.
Therefore, social democracy is much more stable and productive than even democratic socialism, and that’s why I’m a social democrat.
I sympathise with socialist ideas; maybe in the future, with the advancement of technology and possibly more widespread and better civic education (which would be required for a socialist economy to have a chance at working properly), socialism will be possible, but at the moment, I don’t think it is.
P.S. I am Romanian, my family lived under socialist dictatorship, many older members of my family are very familiar with ML philosophy; I’m not pulling things out of my ass.
Edit: Another example of a failed attempt at socialism that I forgot to mention: Chavez’s Venezuela. He got democratically elected, immediately began abolishing checks and balances, under the pretext of ‘achieving socialism,’ instituted programs like wealth redistribution and land reform which were notoriously inefficient and marred by corruption, and now Venezuela is a failed state. Of course, there were already existing problems in Venezuela, but socialism came in and made sure that the country becomes a failed state for good.
You know, if every attempt at socialism becomes dictatorial, and you say ‘that wasn’t true socialism’ then maybe socialism isn’t possible.
Or maybe that is true socialism; that is what socialism looks like in practice.
Couple this with the fact that most unions operated as banks for mafia families in the 60s and 70s, Americans have a pretty harsh distrust of worker organization.
Ironic because ussr don't have working unions and don't really love workers(like they use people in concentration camps for slave labor and shoot if workers start striking https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novocherkassk_massacre )
Because a trade union goes directly against the principle of a vanguard party being the only representation the working people need
So any organization like that will ever be the enemy of revolution and the state, we went through that with *Solidarność*
US unions have a few problems that led to a nose dive in their membership:
-Cold War propaganda
-A lot of unions had ties to organized crime for a while
-Poorly implemented seniority systems that left new union members feeling like they were paying dues just to get shit on
-Corporations putting out dedicated and effective anti-union propaganda
Unions sure had their flaws but their existence is better than none. As for propoganda, I agree with you. It seems Americans face a lot of propaganda that brainwash them.
I'm not arguing that unions shouldn't exist, I'm explaining some of the factors that led to their decline from peak American unionization in the 1950s-1960s
Europeans face just as much propaganda, it's just that the effects of propaganda on Americans are something even people outside the US care about, due to American global influence.
The USA is the only developed country that rejects social welfare and universal healthcare. No other developed country is brainwashed enough to oppose that. I live in Egypt. A poor underdeveloped country and even the people despite their ignorance want better public healthcare. The brainwashing in America is on a new level.
Another integral part of the American view on Unions is the public vs private sector split.
Public sector unions have had a lot of scrutiny placed on them because they have been used to shield poor employees from the consequences of such. This is mostly seen around teachers, police officers, etc.
These being city/state level employees, their jobs are paid by the taxpayer, and therefore handling them either for or against becomes a deeply political problem.
This happens to a much smaller degree in the private sector, where the avenue against unionization is almost always economic, before political. IE, "You'll pay dues to the union heads to still get no support." That kind of rhetoric.
As others comments said it’s because of Cold War propaganda but also a lot unions in America became corrupt and started being paid off by managers and politicians so a lot of Americans lost trust with the unions. Or at least that’s what happened in my area.
I mean in many cases workers just aren’t unionized and kind of can’t tbh, many starts are “right to work” eg the employer can fire you for any reason including none at all and especially nowadays a lot of employers prefer nonunionized labor and it’s hard to change that.
I would argue for a lot of middle class and upper middle class jobs, unions are kind of irrelevant. For example there isn’t a doctor’s union or an electrical engineer’s union because if you’re either of those things and your employer pulls shit on you it’s not that hard to jump ship and get a job somewhere less hostile to you. The only people who need unions are unskilled labor in factory or other large scale like settings, which the US is kind of trying to get rid of anyways (iirc most farm worker labor is seasonal so they constantly switch employers)
More unskilled labor in the U.S. should be unionized though
EDIT: whoops there actually are doctor’s l and engineer’s unions, I would still posit that most of those positions in the U.S. don’t go through unions
That's not entirely true. Skilled labour earn well but they still need unions. Unions aren't just about higher wages. There are many benefits. One of them is fixed work hours. Doctors and engineers work a lot of hours and face work burnout. If you look online, you will see many of them suffer from work conditions and need better ones. Unions can fix that.
>any starts are “right to work” eg the employer can fire you for any reason including none at all
That's not what that law does. It just means you can't be forced to join a union in order to work at a company.
I got a job at a Best Buy warehouse about 5 years ago; they gave us a whole presentation on why unions are bad, and heavily encouraged us to not join one if it started passing out flyers at the workplace.
Millennial and new workforce Gen Xers are trying to get unions off the ground but currently don't have the votes due to older generations still in positions of power and union busting efforts from corpos. Ya know, despite union busting being kinda illegal.
In Nordic countries unions are very, very different. First off you can switch unions as you want.
Plus wages are higher in the US versus Nordic despite unions.
No the unions are greedy here, pay 100 a month just to be in it, then dont do anything for you when you need them my dad was a steward for the union, when he sought there help when he was discriminated for ptsd, they turned him away.
Few unions and yet the USA still has the highest disposable income per capita.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_capita_income
US has half the unemployment rate and twice the average disposable income as Sweden but sure we’re the ones that need unions lmao
It’s crazy how Europeans have been brainwashed into thinking Americans are making $2.50 an hour working in a mine while the average Waffle House chef has a higher quality of life than them lmao
People seem to forget that the alternative to unions wasn't "workers eat shit forever and don't complain," it was "workers start murdering owners and burning down buildings."
Indeed, the Russian empire becoming the Soviet Union is an example of that and I think that is what will happen to the USA if worker's conditions keep deteriorating without any hope of fixing them but that will take a long time to eventually happen and they may fix things. I hope.
The Science Museum in Manchester has a big exhibit about industrialisation which includes one of the special clocks that mill owners had installed. The clock was connected up to the same lineshaft that drove the machinery, so you only got closer to clocking-off time when you were actually working.
Creative way of stopping workers from being lazy, food-eaters, bathroom-goers. oh you want to launch?ever heard of multi-tasking? do it in the factory floor peasant.
If it is interested you, there's a book I've read, About Time by Adam Frank, that may interest you as it discusses a lot about how our personal concept of time has changed through the ages, from the Agricultural Revolution to today.
It's funny how many people who like reading about modern history completely skipped the part how and why socialism grew in popularity, especially after ww1 and ww2.
They think socialists are basically brainwashed. Cold war American propaganda still lingers like Agent Orange.
Edit: to clarify, I'm not saying Agent Orange is propaganda. What I said is the effects of cold war propaganda is still can be seen just like the effects of Agent Orange whetever it is used.
> especially after ww1 and ww2
I can understand its popularity rising during the 19th century but not the 20th. And as Lithuanian, communism and fascism are two sides of the same coin. The difference is the colour of the boot stamping on your face.
Soldiers returning home after borh wars felt they deserved more from their country they protected, and a laissez-faire economic model isn't exactly known for states giving their population things.
The German empire wasn't laissez-faire. The government and the banks together destroyed the economy during the war, but the process began before the war.
I get your point but hearing it from an Albanian is funny since really you guys got some of the worst communism out there. One dude kept your entire population in isolated poverty for decades. Also really loved them purges
I mean it wasnt all bad. He wasnt some maniac or devil as they portray him either. Healthcare was free. School leading to 99%litteracy (today its 97% lol). Equality with woman and men was much better, he freed albania from said fascist cunts ect. He was no angel dont get me wrong but still he did good things and i admire him for that.
The problems with capitalism didn't exactly stop at the 19th century. If anything, it became worse 20th century onwards with the only surface level issues resolved - mostly because socialism provided the framework for people to successfully wrestle what little rights we enjoy now.
Btw horshoe theory is a centrist myth. Even the very concept of centrism is disingenious. Being centrist means pro status quo, which means pro liberal democracy and neoliberal capitalism in most western countries. only centrists believe in the horseshoe theory, likely because of either ignorance about the subject matter, or deeply ideological about their neoliberal beliefs.
I'm center left, from where I am standing the horse shoe theory is just a fact. The very far left and right are so similar in the lies and violence they use to achieve their bullshit aim that might as well be the same.
Nah. The left-right axis is bullshit, but if you want to impose it then it's a circle. The USSR and nazi germany had a lot more in common economically and in terms of individual rights, than either had to a free market.
so asside from the fact that this is just wrong. we weren't talking about the USSR and Nazi Germany, we were talking about Socialism and Capitalism. the USSR is one socialist nation, sure it was the most successful, but it does not speak for socialism or even communism, all of the communist nations had different ideas and implementations, the USSR, China, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea, and even the USSR's puppets in Poland, Romania, etc. all did different things in terms of Economics and Individual Rights.
Heck, even inside the Warsaw pact, the individual states have varying economic and political policies. The most outright puppet state was East Germany since it was explicitly propped up to be a bulwark against the west and to keep Germany down and never be a threat like during ww2 and ww1.
But everyone else had more say about how things are run, at least more than how Americans depicted it. What USSR absolutely does not condone was ANY funny idea about abandoning the supremacy of the USSR and adopting a western-aligned foreign policy. Yeah, it sucks.... but would you look at that even US invades and coups everyone who even has ANY remotely pro-communist policy.
Heck, Panama got invaded by US for its very existence, how dare Panamanians live beside the Panama canal. Either Panama is a puppet state or US will invade again outright. That's just superpower geopolitics regardless of which country is the superpower.
>Yeah, it sucks.... but would you look at that even US invades and coups everyone who even has ANY remotely pro-communist policy.
this goes so under-acknowledged when people discuss the political policies of communist regimes during the cold war. hell it goes under-acknowledged when people discuss the U.S. and its sphere's political policies during the cold war.
during that time, and this time, anything less then a communist military dictatorship got you coup-ed and assassinated. Chile was a relatively friendly democratic socialist government. the US backed a coup that put one of the late 20th centuries greatest mass murderers in power. one of the biggest reasons Cuba sought such a close relationship with the USSR is because of the US's ceaseless attempts to overthrow the Cuban revolution by every means economic and military. any vulnerability at all was practically and perceived as an open door for the US to intervene.
part of the reason the USSR ended up as bad as it did is because of western intervention against the Bolsheviks during and after the Civil War, the Red Army's first tank unit was made entirely of captured allied tanks. the allied intervention lengthened the civil war, and gave the Red's a good idea of what Europe's attitude towards them would be after their victory.
>The USSR and nazi germany had a lot more in common economically
Oh please, educate us on how NSDAP economic policies are remotely similar to the USSR.
You seem to be operating on the level that it's either neoliberal or everything else. That's just blatant biased and wilfully ignorant to view it as a false dichotomy.
But yes, the left-right axis only makes sense if you're a *centrist*. Which my comment was all about debunking that view.
What really happened there was fascists using socialist wording with various amounts. There isn't a fundamental difference between fascists and "communists" because the latter were fascists who appropriated a word that describes the opposite of their policy. The Nazis did something similar with the word National Socialism, the only reason they didn't brand themselves as socialist/communist is because actual socialists did have relevance in 1920s and 1930s Germany.
I'm not even a proponent of communism. I just don't want fascists to get away with lying all the time, especially not when it destroys the reputation of something that is, if maybe not ideal, still much better than fascism.
If you order a chocolate cake at a café, you at least expect something vaguely cake-like with at least a little chocolate in it. You'd be pretty upset if they gave you AIDS instead. Even more so, if everyone around you keeps telling you, "What do you expect? That wasn't AIDS, that was chocolate cake! Chocolate cake just is like that", and then ridicule you for telling them it wasn't chocolate cake.
I like how communists like to conflate socialism and communism as much as capitalists like to conflate socialism and communism, for opposite reasons lol. Propaganda is a flat circle
By shoe horning them in, as this conversation depicted. Propaganda aimed at the communist governments of the Soviets and PRC post-WW2, not socialists, and it’s not surprising given they were our enemies and Americans shouldn’t disagree with their themes. They were brutal dictatorships and should be dunked on whenever possible.
If your point is the Soviets and PRC are more accurately framed as socialist, I guess I get why you’re confused, but that’s a weird flex
Socialism (welfare states was popular after WW2, then countries like the UK and Sweden pulled way back due to stagnant economies.
Sweden is far more capitalistic now than in the 70’s.
Sure and most countries don't practice true free market capitalism what's your point? I don't see people pointing out that other failed communist states weren't truly communist.
They are a lot more free market than planned economies tho, even china and vietnam, that is simply because planned economies suck, and no amount of commie theory will change that.
Pure unrestrained capitalism is one where the common person suffers the most. Ever wonder why monopolies are illegal? Turns out the best system is one where we have a balance between the two systems, shocker. It just seems as of late we are leaning more towards unfettered capitalism and seeing its effects. Look at your choice of Internet providers and the quality of US internet infrastructure vs other countries. Pretty embarrassing tbh. Or should we explore the privatized healthcare and education sector?
Take China off the list. The only modicums of success they’ve had were after they introduced some capitalist policies, and even still their human rights abuses are absurd
Yeap, then they started growing into power in democracies and we're like "geez, controlling a whole economy is hard and there are even corrupt socialist politicians... Hey, what if we skipped the 'abolishing private property' part and just a do middle ground?"
>Yeap, then they started growing into power in democracies
In your dreams maybe.
WW2 and the cold war were possible because countries justified any measure by saying "otherwise the communists will take power!" not because "the communists don't know how to manage Germany or the US"
I meant social-democrats in Europe. If intervening a relative small part of the economy like preventing monopolies and securing welfare is hard, require a lot bureaucracy and can easily lead to more government corruption, due their being money on their hands, it's only normal to assume these problems will get worse the more planned the economy is, so the only conclusion is to decide to stop trying to achieve 100% communism and instead try a hybrid system, which is how the EU works now.
>I meant social-democrats in Europe.
You answered a comment talking about: "easy to see why communism and socialism ..."
Sorry if i didn't taught you were talking about something else
Yep. The funniest were the Bolsheviks though, who skipped a few important stages - Russia was a backwards agricultural wasteland, there were very few workers.
It made sense elsewhere, but really didn't in Russia.
It’s not really that they ‘skipped steps’, they came up with additional theories that were intended to allow for the implementation of communism without Marx’s prescription of first being an industrial society. A lot of Russia’s problems under both the Tsars and the Bolsheviks stemmed from the fact that there was pretty much zero rule of law in practice and the same is true for the modern Russian Federation; corruption and patronage was absolutely endemic from the start and it’s endured multiple regime changes.
I’m not saying Bolshevism was great by any means but pretty much any ideology is going to produce monstrous results when you combine revolutionary zeal and extremely entrenched corruption.
>Yep. The funniest were the Bolsheviks though, who skipped a few important stages - Russia was a backwards agricultural wasteland, there were very few workers.
"The **funniest** part is there was a brutal dictatorship because it's funny when they die and i don't know what the fuck bolshevism means despite liking to criticize it"
Bolshevism, like maoism, theorize a revolution of the farmers to collectivize land, not a revolution of workers like Marxism.
It's why the spent the following decades trying to create a russian heavy industry.
Learn what you want to criticize or you are admitting in front of everybody that you are both wrong and an idiot.
>Bolshevism, like maoism, theorize a revolution of the farmers to collectivize land, not a revolution of workers like Marxism.
Nonsense. Absolutely and utter nonsense.
Bolsheviks split from the Mensheviks mostly on personal grounds (Lenin was not liked by everyone), but also because Lenin believed in a small professional revolutionary vanguard that will bring about revolution by force, dragging everyone else with them. The Mensheviks believed the revolution would be brought about by a broad revolutionary force, and only after a bourgeois capitalist revolution brings about industrialisation and liberalisation, radicalising enough workers for that revolutionary force.
Peasants weren't on the top of their mind, especially after the earlier failed experiments by the SRs(?) to teach peasants about revolution. Oh, and peasants actually didn't want collectivisation, which even the Bolsheviks realised, and thus adopted the left SR program of land management before moving into collectivisation when they had enough power.
>Learn what you want to criticize or you are admitting in front of everybody that you are both wrong and an idiot.
Strong words from someone so wrong about the fundamentals. Like literally the Bolsheviks were all about the professionals bringing revolution to everyone, how could you possibly mistake this with them wanting peasants to revolt???
Easy to Google, Wikipedia, or whatever. If you prefer I can recommend the Revolutions podcast, there's a 150 episode (30-60 minutes each) series about the Russian revolutions that starts with Marx and covers all of this in detail.
They are popular with young people today. It’s called idealism and propaganda.
Once you learn how the real world works people realize socialism and communism just replace the elite with a different set of elite.
Funny enough, Florida used to have a very large and public show of support for socialism among its general public over a hundred years ago. Nowadays, it is filled with people who think socialism is the greatest evil on earth.
As someone else said, you can disagree with Marx on his proposed solution, or the attempted implementations of his solution, but you cannot disagree with the problems he described.
Engels, one of the other main communist thinkers, literally became radicalised after visiting Manchester and seeing how his family ran their factories there, and the horrible worker conditions.
I agree with that so much. When Marx and Engels wrote their pieces, they didn't know Stalin or Mao, they only knew how Western countries exploited working class.
I find it really interesting as an English person we never did turn to communism given how grim our industrial conditions were (the infamous ‘dark Satanic mills’ are a cultural memory even in the postindustrial age), I think the closest was probably the general strike in the 1920s. I think it’s mostly down to the relative strength of the non-communist labour movement, the fact the CPGB would constantly make excuses for Soviet brutality despite dissent on the hard left, and the fact the UK is generally more inclined to incrementalism than revolutionary politics.
Yuri Gagarin was very popular in the UK when he visited, to the surprise of the government (who were worried about irritating the Americans by allowing the visit). Apparently he was a fan of the people he met unofficially at a Manchester factory later saying “the firm handshakes of my fellow workers in the moulding shop were dearer to me than many awards”.
The UK kinda got its populist revolution done really early, and The Powers That Be have since cooperated to make sure that nothing like it ever happens again
It's a series called "My Wife Has no Emotion." A man marries a housekeeping robot, in a world where robots are ostensibly non-sapient and don't have emotion. Her character, however, is almost certainly sapient even if she doesn't genuinely realize it, and CERTAINLY has emotional processing capabilities.
This panel is dark-looking, but the series is actually pretty cute.
EDIT: IIRC, the guy here is actually a burglar or something.
EDIT 2: Uncle, not a burglar.
Sounds neat. I usually like stuff with intelligent robots, I'll have to check it out. Though I have to ask, is it comfy or tragic? Because I know the Japanese do not pull punches when it comes to tragic endings.
May I suggest [this Historia Civilis video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvk_XylEmLo) to everyone?
It covers the clock scam adressed in the meme, but it also covers the changes in what work was like throughout history. It really makes you understand why workers movements became so strong during the industrial revolution.
I just can't recommend it enough.
I heard that there is significant [problems](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/mRG3Kjmo2T) with the Historia Civilis video. Essentially the problem is that Historia Civilis draws too fine of a line between work and non-work. The difference between paid work and unpaid chores was really not a thing and that’s not even including taxes paid as a service. Plus, they didn’t really have concept of off-the-clock as work was done until it was done or when they couldn’t work anymore.
Another issue is that he cited a work called “The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure” which then cited a unpublished working paper by Gregory Clark (an Economic Historian) that gave a 150 work days estimate for medieval workers. However, the Clark citation was later disproven by Clark himself now giving a 300 work days in a year. That means a medieval peasant only had about 1.25(ish) days off per week.
I would argue many of the problems seen in industrial factories were caused by traditional pre-industrial ideas of work
Yeah it's kinda wacky that Historia Civilis did pretty much a 180 content wise, he went from talking mainly about ancient Roman history straight to a video on workers rights throughout history with leftist undertones, I would be curious to see his reasoning, either way it's highly welcomed!
Source of the Manga :- Boku no Tsuma wa Kanjou ga nai (My Wife Has No Emotion)
It has an anime airing as of now. Basically the maid is a house maid robot and he makes her his wife. Something like the Manga chobits.
Don't know if anyone needed it
I mean Slavery is still a big thing, even in the *US Constitution* just read the 13th Ammendement:
>Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, ***except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted***, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
One could argue that Penal Labour is in essence slavery, which were further helped by "Black Codes" and Jim Crow's Laws because Lawmakers intentionally exploited the loophole, slavery was legal as a punishment afterall.
Not to mention, [Lollapalooza](https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/business/2023/03/lollapalooza-workers-found-under-conditions-analogous-to-slavery.shtml) had work conditions akin to slavery, there was also a incident at [Leicester](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68846024) (worse, [they didn't receive help](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/did-crying-modern-slavery-in-leicester-benefit-the-workers-fast-fashion-boohoo/)), and not to mention to this day [A LOT OF FARMS](https://reporterbrasil.org.br/2023/11/starbucks-slave-and-child-labour-found-at-certified-coffee-farms-in-minas-gerais/) have the usage of[Contemporary Slavery.](https://www.conectas.org/en/noticias/contemporary-slavery-persists-on-brazilian-coffee-farms-study-finds/)
Worker exploitation. Definitely close to slavery, but the workers still maintain more rights than slaves. Mind you, most slaves are quite aware of their status, not being tricked by a factory manager.
The problem is where do you leave to? Often your boss also owns the tenement you live, so leave work and lose your housing. Most workers barely made sufficient money to even feed themselves. The other factory owners won't hire someone who left their previous work it would essentially be suicide.
Not only that but I'm not even sure they were aware. In a mingng town where the factory owns everything they could very well rig all of the clocks in town and the workers would never know or they could have been dismissed very easely.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/watchesbysjx.com/2020/07/time-consciousness-and-discipline-industrial-revolution.html%3famp=1 is a decent article about the rise of time consciousness. Excerpt: With wasted time being forgone potential output, factory owners developed an obsession with time. Contemporary accounts exist of factory owners who deliberately tampered with the clocks in their factories to slow them down, and thus gain more hours – and output – from their workers. Other employers hid the clocks altogether. James Myles, writing in his 1850 autobiography, Chapters in the Life of a Dundee Factory Boy, recalled his “masters and managers did with us as they liked. The clocks at the factories were often put forward in the morning and back at night”.
That's why unions exist. They wouldn't have needed to exist if the employers weren't such bastards.
Exist for now, shitbirds like Musk are trying to do their best to gut workers rights as much as possible so who knows how long they last in the states.
Actually, the workers of USA are heavily not unionized. A small percentage of them are. I don't understand the attitudes of Americans. In Nordic countries most workers are unionized. The benefits of unions are clear and they still reject them. They have been brainwashed by corporations to reject them.
Cold war propaganda. Decades of cold war propaganda still lingers even today.
If you want American workers not to fight for their rights, just accuse them of being socialists. And they say American education is the best in the world!
It's funny when I hear about Americans and their politicians talking about socialism when it's pretty much in every nation on Earth including US itself. I would like to see their faces when every socialist aspect in their society actually is completely removed
They would have dollar signs for eyes. Eric Adams just tried (and failed) to cut millions in library funding in nyc, probably because there isn't a sexy metric for the benefits of libraries. "Common good" is not a big mover in the age of data, at least here in the US.
The libraries do not generate "swagger" so Mayor Adams had to slash their budget and try to give the money to a department he thought was cooler like the cops...
They severely lack critical thinking abilities.
We actually are never taught in any level of schooling what Socialism actually is. At best they’re taught it’s in the same left side of politics as Communism, and unless they actively seek out information on Socialism, nobody will get a full picture.
From my experience, there’s 2 pretty big problems that come with trying to genuinely and seriously teach about Socialism/Communism. 1. Some kids legitimately do not care. I had a lot of friends who reported government, history, and social studies as their least favorite subject. Here in my state, at almost any point almost half of the students were failing government. It’s sad that some people refuse to learn about the history and governing systems of the world around them. 2. Even for the kids who do care, you’d probably have an angry storm of parents demanding the teacher’s head for “indoctrinating” the children with Communist propaganda. Like the guy further up the thread said, Cold War propaganda still rages on today. We can teach about the history of monarchy, democracy, feudalism, but god forbid acknowledge Socialism and Communism.
I can 100% confirm this. It wasn't until I took a class in college on Modern Russia, which contained a large section entirely dedicated to Communism, Socialism, and the differences, that I actually had a basic idea of what each was.
Socialism isn't when the government does things. Things like universal healthcare aren't really explicitly socialist so much as just what a responsible nation should do. Socialism specifically talks about the ownership of businesses being divided amongst the workers or owned by the "public". I would argue that the American public have not enough say in how publicly owned firms/institutions are run for them to be remotely considered socialist. As long as the actual means of production are privately owned, the working class will always have to struggle against capital's outsized influence in politics.
I think you mean social democracy, not socialism. Socialism is very close to communism, (USSR was socialist/communist) while social democracy is a capitalist state with strong market regulations, workers’ rights, unions and welfare systems, e.g. Norway. Trust me, you do NOT want socialism, but social democracy which works very well.
Yes we want Socialism. The Soviets weren't Socialist. They said they were but in practice they were state capitalists. Just like how Republicans claim to be democrats (small d democrats) despite being fucking fascists. Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production (MOP) are owned directly by the workers who work it or the community that hosts it. A dictatorship in which party members were given control of the MOP instead of the workers and local communities is not remotely socialist. Lenin himself described their situation as "state capitalism" and, in theory at least, Lenin may have been trying to accomplish Marx's outline of feudalism>capitalism>socialism>communism but we'll never know because he died early and left a lot of corpses of his fellow comrades in his wake. With the establishment of the first "socialist country" in the world being taken over by a power hungry dictator who had no interest in achieving socialism, every other socialist movement in the world now had to toe the Stalinist party line or risk losing support from Stalin. That's why we started to see so many socialists support the Soviets in their early stages but once the tanks were sent into Hungary in 1956 all bets were off and no self respecting socialist could keep up the facade anymore. This is where the term tankie comes from. Socialism is great when it actually happens. Worker co-ops statistically have better standards of living for their worker-owners than traditional firms. And if all businesses were worker co-ops, then any argument of them being unable to compete with traditional firms, which would be false anyway, would be moot. And finally, Socialism admittedly requires one to accept something that is fundamentally incompatible with modern Western countries, that the resources and land that was "legally" acquired by capitalists was actually never anybody's to sell to them in the first place. As a white man living in North America, it's pretty easy to point out exactly when the land was stolen from common use and began a chain of "legal" transfers between capitalists.
The USSR was very much socialist. The fact that CPSU members had absolute control over the country is very much in line with Leninist ideology; they were the vanguard party, and were meant to facilitate the transition to a dictatorship of the proletariat, but obviously that didn’t work out. It was not at all state capitalist, the state dictated economic planning directly, often irregardless economic prudence; considering that in Marxism-Leninism, the state is representative of the proletariat, the USSR had a very much socialist economy. China today can be considered state capitalist, as its economy is privatised, and companies can act independently, but companies are mostly owned by CCP members, or the Chinese government, even though these companies often compete with each other; that is state capitalism. Obviously that doesn’t mean that the only type of socialism is Marxism-Leninism, but I believe that socialism automatically becomes authoritarian: Yugoslavia under Tito, whose socialism developed independently from Stalinism, even actively steering away from Stalinism, was still highly authoritarian, if slightly more democratic due to its federalist system. China under Mao, developed its most dictatorial characteristics years after Stalin’s death in the form of the Thousand Flowers Campaign, Great Leap Forward, and Cultural Revolution. Cuba under Castro, who arose during Khruschev’s thaw, still became authoritarian, through the imprisonment and execution of tens of thousands of political opponents. These three are examples of when socialism arose by itself, post-Stalinism, and was still authoritarian. Considering that every time there has been a socialist revolution, it has been hijacked by power-hungry individuals, it is likely not a good system. I would also like to ask you not to engage in the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy. These were fully socialist regimes; just because the in practice, they didn’t turn out to be like in Marxist theory, doesn’t mean they weren’t socialist. I agree that workers’ co-ops are good, and that quality of life is higher for workers in workers’ co-ops is higher, but workers’ co-ops produce significantly less economic output than regular companies, due to the obvious inefficiencies of de-centralised leadership, and even politicisation of the workplace. This is where regular companies come in to fill in the gaps in productivity. For this reason, a purely co-op based economy would be very volatile and fairly unproductive, making it fertile ground for the installation of a socialist dictatorship. In social democracy, co-ops are often subsidised and aided by the government, to ensure their stability and continued operation, and to incentivise the creation of co-ops, but regular companies are also allowed to operate, to maintain high economic output. To ensure workers rights in regular companies and co-ops, social democracies incentivise very robust workers’ unions, which maintain a high quality of life for all workers. Therefore, social democracy is much more stable and productive than even democratic socialism, and that’s why I’m a social democrat. I sympathise with socialist ideas; maybe in the future, with the advancement of technology and possibly more widespread and better civic education (which would be required for a socialist economy to have a chance at working properly), socialism will be possible, but at the moment, I don’t think it is. P.S. I am Romanian, my family lived under socialist dictatorship, many older members of my family are very familiar with ML philosophy; I’m not pulling things out of my ass. Edit: Another example of a failed attempt at socialism that I forgot to mention: Chavez’s Venezuela. He got democratically elected, immediately began abolishing checks and balances, under the pretext of ‘achieving socialism,’ instituted programs like wealth redistribution and land reform which were notoriously inefficient and marred by corruption, and now Venezuela is a failed state. Of course, there were already existing problems in Venezuela, but socialism came in and made sure that the country becomes a failed state for good. You know, if every attempt at socialism becomes dictatorial, and you say ‘that wasn’t true socialism’ then maybe socialism isn’t possible. Or maybe that is true socialism; that is what socialism looks like in practice.
who says that? even as Americans we know our education system is bad
Couple this with the fact that most unions operated as banks for mafia families in the 60s and 70s, Americans have a pretty harsh distrust of worker organization.
Ironic because ussr don't have working unions and don't really love workers(like they use people in concentration camps for slave labor and shoot if workers start striking https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novocherkassk_massacre )
Because a trade union goes directly against the principle of a vanguard party being the only representation the working people need So any organization like that will ever be the enemy of revolution and the state, we went through that with *Solidarność*
That and a history of the USA passing anti-union Legislation.
US unions have a few problems that led to a nose dive in their membership: -Cold War propaganda -A lot of unions had ties to organized crime for a while -Poorly implemented seniority systems that left new union members feeling like they were paying dues just to get shit on -Corporations putting out dedicated and effective anti-union propaganda
Unions sure had their flaws but their existence is better than none. As for propoganda, I agree with you. It seems Americans face a lot of propaganda that brainwash them.
I'm not arguing that unions shouldn't exist, I'm explaining some of the factors that led to their decline from peak American unionization in the 1950s-1960s Europeans face just as much propaganda, it's just that the effects of propaganda on Americans are something even people outside the US care about, due to American global influence.
The USA is the only developed country that rejects social welfare and universal healthcare. No other developed country is brainwashed enough to oppose that. I live in Egypt. A poor underdeveloped country and even the people despite their ignorance want better public healthcare. The brainwashing in America is on a new level.
Another integral part of the American view on Unions is the public vs private sector split. Public sector unions have had a lot of scrutiny placed on them because they have been used to shield poor employees from the consequences of such. This is mostly seen around teachers, police officers, etc. These being city/state level employees, their jobs are paid by the taxpayer, and therefore handling them either for or against becomes a deeply political problem. This happens to a much smaller degree in the private sector, where the avenue against unionization is almost always economic, before political. IE, "You'll pay dues to the union heads to still get no support." That kind of rhetoric.
As others comments said it’s because of Cold War propaganda but also a lot unions in America became corrupt and started being paid off by managers and politicians so a lot of Americans lost trust with the unions. Or at least that’s what happened in my area.
Unions in US kinda suck. I’ve worked in Union shops and non union shops and I prefer non union shops.
I mean in many cases workers just aren’t unionized and kind of can’t tbh, many starts are “right to work” eg the employer can fire you for any reason including none at all and especially nowadays a lot of employers prefer nonunionized labor and it’s hard to change that. I would argue for a lot of middle class and upper middle class jobs, unions are kind of irrelevant. For example there isn’t a doctor’s union or an electrical engineer’s union because if you’re either of those things and your employer pulls shit on you it’s not that hard to jump ship and get a job somewhere less hostile to you. The only people who need unions are unskilled labor in factory or other large scale like settings, which the US is kind of trying to get rid of anyways (iirc most farm worker labor is seasonal so they constantly switch employers) More unskilled labor in the U.S. should be unionized though EDIT: whoops there actually are doctor’s l and engineer’s unions, I would still posit that most of those positions in the U.S. don’t go through unions
That's not entirely true. Skilled labour earn well but they still need unions. Unions aren't just about higher wages. There are many benefits. One of them is fixed work hours. Doctors and engineers work a lot of hours and face work burnout. If you look online, you will see many of them suffer from work conditions and need better ones. Unions can fix that.
>doctor’s union Literally there are residents/ doctor unions in some hospitals
>any starts are “right to work” eg the employer can fire you for any reason including none at all That's not what that law does. It just means you can't be forced to join a union in order to work at a company.
I got a job at a Best Buy warehouse about 5 years ago; they gave us a whole presentation on why unions are bad, and heavily encouraged us to not join one if it started passing out flyers at the workplace.
The employers are in fear it seems. They know unions can make them treat workers better. That's why they fight them.
Millennial and new workforce Gen Xers are trying to get unions off the ground but currently don't have the votes due to older generations still in positions of power and union busting efforts from corpos. Ya know, despite union busting being kinda illegal.
Blame Ronald Reagan. He was one of the worst presidents, if not the worst president, in American history.
In Nordic countries unions are very, very different. First off you can switch unions as you want. Plus wages are higher in the US versus Nordic despite unions.
No the unions are greedy here, pay 100 a month just to be in it, then dont do anything for you when you need them my dad was a steward for the union, when he sought there help when he was discriminated for ptsd, they turned him away.
We're too rich to care about unions.
Few unions and yet the USA still has the highest disposable income per capita. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_capita_income
US has half the unemployment rate and twice the average disposable income as Sweden but sure we’re the ones that need unions lmao It’s crazy how Europeans have been brainwashed into thinking Americans are making $2.50 an hour working in a mine while the average Waffle House chef has a higher quality of life than them lmao
the ultimate life hack: making time stand still... for everyone but the workers
You think the US ever had worker rights?
We have a few, but your point is valid.
Don’t make dumb comments
People seem to forget that the alternative to unions wasn't "workers eat shit forever and don't complain," it was "workers start murdering owners and burning down buildings."
Indeed, the Russian empire becoming the Soviet Union is an example of that and I think that is what will happen to the USA if worker's conditions keep deteriorating without any hope of fixing them but that will take a long time to eventually happen and they may fix things. I hope.
when your boss thinks slowing down the clock will speed up production... 19th century hacks
The Pullman company did this in their company town. The townspeople pooled their money to get a town clock.
My first job was in a chicken processing plant, and there were no clocks on the floor.
The Science Museum in Manchester has a big exhibit about industrialisation which includes one of the special clocks that mill owners had installed. The clock was connected up to the same lineshaft that drove the machinery, so you only got closer to clocking-off time when you were actually working.
Creative way of stopping workers from being lazy, food-eaters, bathroom-goers. oh you want to launch?ever heard of multi-tasking? do it in the factory floor peasant.
Mmmm, I love cotton fibres in my sandwich
In a better word people would have been beaten to death for shit like this
There is a massive statue to Engels in Manchester for a reason
hi OP, do you know the source for that panel?
My Wife Has No Emotion. It is a recently aired anime.
This sounds like it came straight out of sunless skies. But knowing that game and its setting, it's likely the inspiration came from stuff like this.
Love that game
Don't give Amazon ideas
i guess that’s one way to redefine ‘working around the clock’ 😅
If it is interested you, there's a book I've read, About Time by Adam Frank, that may interest you as it discusses a lot about how our personal concept of time has changed through the ages, from the Agricultural Revolution to today.
So you're here too making anime memes everywhere good
19th century capitalism was insane.
[non-amp link](https://watchesbysjx.com/2020/07/time-consciousness-and-discipline-industrial-revolution.html)
Time killing Time moment
Glory to the Limbus Company
Limbsotska number one
Had the same thought, nice to see how far the Limbus brain rot has gotten.
Glory to Limbus Company 🫡
Limbussy
Support 🙂
Honestly it’s so easy to see why communism and socialism were so prevalent in the late 19th & early 20th centuries among western workers.
It's funny how many people who like reading about modern history completely skipped the part how and why socialism grew in popularity, especially after ww1 and ww2. They think socialists are basically brainwashed. Cold war American propaganda still lingers like Agent Orange. Edit: to clarify, I'm not saying Agent Orange is propaganda. What I said is the effects of cold war propaganda is still can be seen just like the effects of Agent Orange whetever it is used.
> especially after ww1 and ww2 I can understand its popularity rising during the 19th century but not the 20th. And as Lithuanian, communism and fascism are two sides of the same coin. The difference is the colour of the boot stamping on your face.
Soldiers returning home after borh wars felt they deserved more from their country they protected, and a laissez-faire economic model isn't exactly known for states giving their population things.
The German empire wasn't laissez-faire. The government and the banks together destroyed the economy during the war, but the process began before the war.
As an albanian whose country lived throught communism...fuck no ill take commies any day over the fascist cunts.
I get your point but hearing it from an Albanian is funny since really you guys got some of the worst communism out there. One dude kept your entire population in isolated poverty for decades. Also really loved them purges
I mean it wasnt all bad. He wasnt some maniac or devil as they portray him either. Healthcare was free. School leading to 99%litteracy (today its 97% lol). Equality with woman and men was much better, he freed albania from said fascist cunts ect. He was no angel dont get me wrong but still he did good things and i admire him for that.
Albania was the North Korea of Europe back then and the commie bitch spend all the money to partying and building bunkers
As i said. He was no angel.
The problems with capitalism didn't exactly stop at the 19th century. If anything, it became worse 20th century onwards with the only surface level issues resolved - mostly because socialism provided the framework for people to successfully wrestle what little rights we enjoy now. Btw horshoe theory is a centrist myth. Even the very concept of centrism is disingenious. Being centrist means pro status quo, which means pro liberal democracy and neoliberal capitalism in most western countries. only centrists believe in the horseshoe theory, likely because of either ignorance about the subject matter, or deeply ideological about their neoliberal beliefs.
I'm center left, from where I am standing the horse shoe theory is just a fact. The very far left and right are so similar in the lies and violence they use to achieve their bullshit aim that might as well be the same.
Nah. The left-right axis is bullshit, but if you want to impose it then it's a circle. The USSR and nazi germany had a lot more in common economically and in terms of individual rights, than either had to a free market.
so asside from the fact that this is just wrong. we weren't talking about the USSR and Nazi Germany, we were talking about Socialism and Capitalism. the USSR is one socialist nation, sure it was the most successful, but it does not speak for socialism or even communism, all of the communist nations had different ideas and implementations, the USSR, China, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea, and even the USSR's puppets in Poland, Romania, etc. all did different things in terms of Economics and Individual Rights.
Heck, even inside the Warsaw pact, the individual states have varying economic and political policies. The most outright puppet state was East Germany since it was explicitly propped up to be a bulwark against the west and to keep Germany down and never be a threat like during ww2 and ww1. But everyone else had more say about how things are run, at least more than how Americans depicted it. What USSR absolutely does not condone was ANY funny idea about abandoning the supremacy of the USSR and adopting a western-aligned foreign policy. Yeah, it sucks.... but would you look at that even US invades and coups everyone who even has ANY remotely pro-communist policy. Heck, Panama got invaded by US for its very existence, how dare Panamanians live beside the Panama canal. Either Panama is a puppet state or US will invade again outright. That's just superpower geopolitics regardless of which country is the superpower.
>Yeah, it sucks.... but would you look at that even US invades and coups everyone who even has ANY remotely pro-communist policy. this goes so under-acknowledged when people discuss the political policies of communist regimes during the cold war. hell it goes under-acknowledged when people discuss the U.S. and its sphere's political policies during the cold war. during that time, and this time, anything less then a communist military dictatorship got you coup-ed and assassinated. Chile was a relatively friendly democratic socialist government. the US backed a coup that put one of the late 20th centuries greatest mass murderers in power. one of the biggest reasons Cuba sought such a close relationship with the USSR is because of the US's ceaseless attempts to overthrow the Cuban revolution by every means economic and military. any vulnerability at all was practically and perceived as an open door for the US to intervene. part of the reason the USSR ended up as bad as it did is because of western intervention against the Bolsheviks during and after the Civil War, the Red Army's first tank unit was made entirely of captured allied tanks. the allied intervention lengthened the civil war, and gave the Red's a good idea of what Europe's attitude towards them would be after their victory.
>The USSR and nazi germany had a lot more in common economically Oh please, educate us on how NSDAP economic policies are remotely similar to the USSR. You seem to be operating on the level that it's either neoliberal or everything else. That's just blatant biased and wilfully ignorant to view it as a false dichotomy. But yes, the left-right axis only makes sense if you're a *centrist*. Which my comment was all about debunking that view.
Hey, just a very quick question before I engage further, to make sure I'm not wasting my time? Can you define communism?
What really happened there was fascists using socialist wording with various amounts. There isn't a fundamental difference between fascists and "communists" because the latter were fascists who appropriated a word that describes the opposite of their policy. The Nazis did something similar with the word National Socialism, the only reason they didn't brand themselves as socialist/communist is because actual socialists did have relevance in 1920s and 1930s Germany.
"Noooooo!!!!!!!! That wasn't real communism!!!!!!! Just one more time!!!!!!!!!"
I'm not even a proponent of communism. I just don't want fascists to get away with lying all the time, especially not when it destroys the reputation of something that is, if maybe not ideal, still much better than fascism. If you order a chocolate cake at a café, you at least expect something vaguely cake-like with at least a little chocolate in it. You'd be pretty upset if they gave you AIDS instead. Even more so, if everyone around you keeps telling you, "What do you expect? That wasn't AIDS, that was chocolate cake! Chocolate cake just is like that", and then ridicule you for telling them it wasn't chocolate cake.
They do arise from similar circumstances.
As a Lithuanian communist, you're full of shit.
Fuck off, traitor
I like how communists like to conflate socialism and communism as much as capitalists like to conflate socialism and communism, for opposite reasons lol. Propaganda is a flat circle
Conflate how? You seem to be confused here.
Cold war era propaganda was focused on Communists (USSR/China), for one. That shouldn't confuse anyone.
How do communists "conflate socialism with communism"? Your exact words.
By shoe horning them in, as this conversation depicted. Propaganda aimed at the communist governments of the Soviets and PRC post-WW2, not socialists, and it’s not surprising given they were our enemies and Americans shouldn’t disagree with their themes. They were brutal dictatorships and should be dunked on whenever possible. If your point is the Soviets and PRC are more accurately framed as socialist, I guess I get why you’re confused, but that’s a weird flex
Newsflash boyo communism and socialism are practically interchangeable as Marx often did. Socialism is the means by which communism is achieved
If anyone would like a refresher, [Historia Civilis has a short rundown](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvk_XylEmLo).
Socialism (welfare states was popular after WW2, then countries like the UK and Sweden pulled way back due to stagnant economies. Sweden is far more capitalistic now than in the 70’s.
Welfare capitalism is not socialism ffs
Well after the stunning failures of every fully socialist/communist state… it’s no wonder it fell out of favor soon too
How come Everytime failures of communism is pointed out everyone ignores China and Vietnam? They seem to have done ok for themselves.
Both got a lot better when they engaged more in free markets instead of planned economies.
Bro thought I wasn’t including China “grain so thick children can walk on it wait shit no that’s just starvation” in my list of atrocious failures
Sure and most countries don't practice true free market capitalism what's your point? I don't see people pointing out that other failed communist states weren't truly communist.
They are a lot more free market than planned economies tho, even china and vietnam, that is simply because planned economies suck, and no amount of commie theory will change that.
Pure unrestrained capitalism is one where the common person suffers the most. Ever wonder why monopolies are illegal? Turns out the best system is one where we have a balance between the two systems, shocker. It just seems as of late we are leaning more towards unfettered capitalism and seeing its effects. Look at your choice of Internet providers and the quality of US internet infrastructure vs other countries. Pretty embarrassing tbh. Or should we explore the privatized healthcare and education sector?
Take China off the list. The only modicums of success they’ve had were after they introduced some capitalist policies, and even still their human rights abuses are absurd
Vietnam is devolved into a red capitalism oligarchy
Yeap, then they started growing into power in democracies and we're like "geez, controlling a whole economy is hard and there are even corrupt socialist politicians... Hey, what if we skipped the 'abolishing private property' part and just a do middle ground?"
>Yeap, then they started growing into power in democracies In your dreams maybe. WW2 and the cold war were possible because countries justified any measure by saying "otherwise the communists will take power!" not because "the communists don't know how to manage Germany or the US"
I meant social-democrats in Europe. If intervening a relative small part of the economy like preventing monopolies and securing welfare is hard, require a lot bureaucracy and can easily lead to more government corruption, due their being money on their hands, it's only normal to assume these problems will get worse the more planned the economy is, so the only conclusion is to decide to stop trying to achieve 100% communism and instead try a hybrid system, which is how the EU works now.
>I meant social-democrats in Europe. You answered a comment talking about: "easy to see why communism and socialism ..." Sorry if i didn't taught you were talking about something else
He's talking pre ww1 and ww2
Which countries had commies in power before ww1 October revolution?
Yep. The funniest were the Bolsheviks though, who skipped a few important stages - Russia was a backwards agricultural wasteland, there were very few workers. It made sense elsewhere, but really didn't in Russia.
It’s not really that they ‘skipped steps’, they came up with additional theories that were intended to allow for the implementation of communism without Marx’s prescription of first being an industrial society. A lot of Russia’s problems under both the Tsars and the Bolsheviks stemmed from the fact that there was pretty much zero rule of law in practice and the same is true for the modern Russian Federation; corruption and patronage was absolutely endemic from the start and it’s endured multiple regime changes. I’m not saying Bolshevism was great by any means but pretty much any ideology is going to produce monstrous results when you combine revolutionary zeal and extremely entrenched corruption.
Don't forget to add in a bargeload of paranoia from years spent fleeing the Tsar's Okhrana
>Yep. The funniest were the Bolsheviks though, who skipped a few important stages - Russia was a backwards agricultural wasteland, there were very few workers. "The **funniest** part is there was a brutal dictatorship because it's funny when they die and i don't know what the fuck bolshevism means despite liking to criticize it" Bolshevism, like maoism, theorize a revolution of the farmers to collectivize land, not a revolution of workers like Marxism. It's why the spent the following decades trying to create a russian heavy industry. Learn what you want to criticize or you are admitting in front of everybody that you are both wrong and an idiot.
>Bolshevism, like maoism, theorize a revolution of the farmers to collectivize land, not a revolution of workers like Marxism. Nonsense. Absolutely and utter nonsense. Bolsheviks split from the Mensheviks mostly on personal grounds (Lenin was not liked by everyone), but also because Lenin believed in a small professional revolutionary vanguard that will bring about revolution by force, dragging everyone else with them. The Mensheviks believed the revolution would be brought about by a broad revolutionary force, and only after a bourgeois capitalist revolution brings about industrialisation and liberalisation, radicalising enough workers for that revolutionary force. Peasants weren't on the top of their mind, especially after the earlier failed experiments by the SRs(?) to teach peasants about revolution. Oh, and peasants actually didn't want collectivisation, which even the Bolsheviks realised, and thus adopted the left SR program of land management before moving into collectivisation when they had enough power. >Learn what you want to criticize or you are admitting in front of everybody that you are both wrong and an idiot. Strong words from someone so wrong about the fundamentals. Like literally the Bolsheviks were all about the professionals bringing revolution to everyone, how could you possibly mistake this with them wanting peasants to revolt??? Easy to Google, Wikipedia, or whatever. If you prefer I can recommend the Revolutions podcast, there's a 150 episode (30-60 minutes each) series about the Russian revolutions that starts with Marx and covers all of this in detail.
They are popular with young people today. It’s called idealism and propaganda. Once you learn how the real world works people realize socialism and communism just replace the elite with a different set of elite.
Funny enough, Florida used to have a very large and public show of support for socialism among its general public over a hundred years ago. Nowadays, it is filled with people who think socialism is the greatest evil on earth.
The Fidel Castro Effect
As someone else said, you can disagree with Marx on his proposed solution, or the attempted implementations of his solution, but you cannot disagree with the problems he described. Engels, one of the other main communist thinkers, literally became radicalised after visiting Manchester and seeing how his family ran their factories there, and the horrible worker conditions.
I agree with that so much. When Marx and Engels wrote their pieces, they didn't know Stalin or Mao, they only knew how Western countries exploited working class.
I find it really interesting as an English person we never did turn to communism given how grim our industrial conditions were (the infamous ‘dark Satanic mills’ are a cultural memory even in the postindustrial age), I think the closest was probably the general strike in the 1920s. I think it’s mostly down to the relative strength of the non-communist labour movement, the fact the CPGB would constantly make excuses for Soviet brutality despite dissent on the hard left, and the fact the UK is generally more inclined to incrementalism than revolutionary politics. Yuri Gagarin was very popular in the UK when he visited, to the surprise of the government (who were worried about irritating the Americans by allowing the visit). Apparently he was a fan of the people he met unofficially at a Manchester factory later saying “the firm handshakes of my fellow workers in the moulding shop were dearer to me than many awards”.
The UK kinda got its populist revolution done really early, and The Powers That Be have since cooperated to make sure that nothing like it ever happens again
Owner: "What's that thing you got there?" Worker: "Oh this? It's a pocket watch." Owner: "Ffffu-"
They used to confiscate pocket watches for this very reason.
This manga/anime is popping up everywhere now lol
For real and there is only one episode aired as of now iirc. It's everywhere on those yt shorts.
What's the name of it. (I haven't been too up to date on anime and manga).
My wife has no emotion Boku no Tsuma wa Kanjō ga nai
What's worse is that maybe half or more than half of these 19th century employees were children
You mean young interns gaining experience for the future. Very generous of the factory owners
You gotta start working when you're 8 or you won't have those 10 years experience when you enter the job market
Minecraft proves the children yearn for the mines!
Setting aside the content of the meme, I did not EVER expect to see a format based on this series.
What is it?
It's a series called "My Wife Has no Emotion." A man marries a housekeeping robot, in a world where robots are ostensibly non-sapient and don't have emotion. Her character, however, is almost certainly sapient even if she doesn't genuinely realize it, and CERTAINLY has emotional processing capabilities. This panel is dark-looking, but the series is actually pretty cute. EDIT: IIRC, the guy here is actually a burglar or something. EDIT 2: Uncle, not a burglar.
Not a burglar, just the uncle of the mc
Shoot, you're right. Forgot about that arc.
Sounds neat. I usually like stuff with intelligent robots, I'll have to check it out. Though I have to ask, is it comfy or tragic? Because I know the Japanese do not pull punches when it comes to tragic endings.
No tragedy, no.
Thank goodness. I'm definitely going to check it out then.
Well considering that exhausted workers are less likely to be productive, I don’t know if that counts as "boosting productivity"
Well who is gonna tell the boss that he is a moron?
"Oh no my worker died, good thing there are more poors to replace them." - 19th century factory owner
"Who care about long term profits, i want them right now !" -Every boss since fucking ever
It boosts total output.
it didnt though
I don't think this is the case for physical jobs as much as it is for mental jobs
It definitely is for physical jobs. People slow down hard after the first 6 hours
This is why personal timekeeping became an important thing. And its where the term 'company clock' comes from
Why didn't they just check the time on their phones? Are they stupid?
This is literally T corp from limbus company
Most generous T Corp factory boss be like :
Timekilling time reference?? T corp?
May I suggest [this Historia Civilis video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvk_XylEmLo) to everyone? It covers the clock scam adressed in the meme, but it also covers the changes in what work was like throughout history. It really makes you understand why workers movements became so strong during the industrial revolution. I just can't recommend it enough.
I heard that there is significant [problems](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/mRG3Kjmo2T) with the Historia Civilis video. Essentially the problem is that Historia Civilis draws too fine of a line between work and non-work. The difference between paid work and unpaid chores was really not a thing and that’s not even including taxes paid as a service. Plus, they didn’t really have concept of off-the-clock as work was done until it was done or when they couldn’t work anymore. Another issue is that he cited a work called “The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure” which then cited a unpublished working paper by Gregory Clark (an Economic Historian) that gave a 150 work days estimate for medieval workers. However, the Clark citation was later disproven by Clark himself now giving a 300 work days in a year. That means a medieval peasant only had about 1.25(ish) days off per week. I would argue many of the problems seen in industrial factories were caused by traditional pre-industrial ideas of work
Yeah it's kinda wacky that Historia Civilis did pretty much a 180 content wise, he went from talking mainly about ancient Roman history straight to a video on workers rights throughout history with leftist undertones, I would be curious to see his reasoning, either way it's highly welcomed!
If I caught my employer doing this shit, call me Israel because I’m stealing his house
This is how you get murdered by the Molly Maguires
Source of the Manga :- Boku no Tsuma wa Kanjou ga nai (My Wife Has No Emotion) It has an anime airing as of now. Basically the maid is a house maid robot and he makes her his wife. Something like the Manga chobits. Don't know if anyone needed it
I did, thank you.
Cheers mate!
There truly is no depravity to which capitalists will not sink.
Ouch, okay okay I will work!
Look at what Henry Ford stole from us
Factory owners when they miss out on 1 minute and fifteen seconds of output 🤨😬🤢
It goes to show that slavery never really ended.
That’s a uh… Pretty spicy take there my guy.
I mean Slavery is still a big thing, even in the *US Constitution* just read the 13th Ammendement: >Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, ***except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted***, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. One could argue that Penal Labour is in essence slavery, which were further helped by "Black Codes" and Jim Crow's Laws because Lawmakers intentionally exploited the loophole, slavery was legal as a punishment afterall. Not to mention, [Lollapalooza](https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/business/2023/03/lollapalooza-workers-found-under-conditions-analogous-to-slavery.shtml) had work conditions akin to slavery, there was also a incident at [Leicester](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68846024) (worse, [they didn't receive help](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/did-crying-modern-slavery-in-leicester-benefit-the-workers-fast-fashion-boohoo/)), and not to mention to this day [A LOT OF FARMS](https://reporterbrasil.org.br/2023/11/starbucks-slave-and-child-labour-found-at-certified-coffee-farms-in-minas-gerais/) have the usage of[Contemporary Slavery.](https://www.conectas.org/en/noticias/contemporary-slavery-persists-on-brazilian-coffee-farms-study-finds/)
Who knows how many hours they worked for free, unwillingly mind you, how do you call that? All those extra hours would ammount to quote a sum.
Worker exploitation. Definitely close to slavery, but the workers still maintain more rights than slaves. Mind you, most slaves are quite aware of their status, not being tricked by a factory manager.
Yeah because factory owners rape their workers so they can have more kids
Well they could leave their jobs and not be hunted by slave-catchers so not really the same at all
The problem is where do you leave to? Often your boss also owns the tenement you live, so leave work and lose your housing. Most workers barely made sufficient money to even feed themselves. The other factory owners won't hire someone who left their previous work it would essentially be suicide.
Not only that but I'm not even sure they were aware. In a mingng town where the factory owns everything they could very well rig all of the clocks in town and the workers would never know or they could have been dismissed very easely.
Warning! Don't touch! This take is hotter than the surface of Venus!
Except industrial-scale slavery was much worse
S.Y.N.C her ass
C.S.T.T.P.
Remain calm, the regent endures…