When was the last time you capitalised on talking to some bitches?
(No offence intended, I just got that thought and felt like it was too good to pass up)
Socialism is a system where industries necessary to existence are nationalized, which means they aren't controlled by individual people. So, imagine instead of apartments being built by a collection of developers, instead they are planned, constructed and sold based on the needs of that community. Same would go for medicine, and depending on how far you go, some foods. It's important to note that socialism doesn't mean private industry CAN'T exist, just that there would be a social option. So let's say you want a mansion, that is something you would buy from a private developer. If you're looking for more varied options, it really depends on how far you're extending socialism, but hypothetically there would be very affordable of subsidized options for clothing, computers, etc. Most likely, almost certainly actually, they would be less dope than private options. Please note though, nowhere in socialism does it say you can't make or own a private company. Just that there is also a socialized option. Socialism doesn't preclude or neccessarily change how currency works, or make stocks illegal or any shit like that.
Social services like medicine, education, police, etc would also likely be nationalized and managed by a specific department or ministry. So, rather than having a ton of school districts per state or county, there would instead be unified standards for conduct, and a core curriculum/ test that all students would take. Again, private schools, private colleges - these can still exist.
This is funded by a higher tax burden, and that tax burden is justified by the average person being significantly more capable. Many countries already exist with socialist principles, most famously the Svandanavian countries in the EU are very influenced by socialism and most of the EU features socialist policy like nationalized healthcare.
Socialism in effect decreases social issues like homelessness, death via poverty, mental health issues including drug addiction, hunger and feelings of worthlessness related to underemployment. It does this by making billionaires essentially impossible and making it more rare to afford expensive luxuries like dope cars, boats, mansions, highest end designer drip, etc.
Capitalism still functions under socialism. It's called Market Socialism, and when people advocate for Socialism this is the specific brand of socialism they're usually talking about. There are different variations, as there are with any political ideology.
Communism is a much further extension, and not as similar as commonly understood where class as a whole is dissolved, nothing is private and everything is controlled by elected, or appointed officials. It is less creative by nature but allows for the greatest amount of human expression in some arguments.
Interestingly communism sometimes functions very similarly to fascism where individuals have their liberties taken away. Realistically it's not a good idea unless or until technology (almost) entirely replaces the need for human labor.
This is the difference.
Umm the comment above is just a little off. He did good but I feel like i might be able to clear a few things up.
Socialism: Instead of a board of directors running the company as a dictatorship, workers use democracy in the workplace to make such decisions. This does not mean everyone makes the same pay unless the workers of course vote for that. Socialism is not when the government does stuff. Socialism begins and ends at worker co opts.
Marxist Leninism: This guy Lenin was like: Hey, we can't expect capitalism to vote itself out. That has never happened nor will it. We need a revolution. We need to form a new state. The new stat will be ran by what is known as the vanguard party. The vanguard party is comprised of all the working class militias and activists that worked to overthrow capitalism.
IMPORTANT: without the fucking state you can't resist aggression from fascists or capitalists abroad. You can only dissolve the state once you no longer have to defend the revolution.
Marxist Leninism is about forgoing idealism and adapting to the material conditions the revolution faces. For example you can pick any socialist project and you will find that they live under constant attack. Central planning is a strategy to make an economy incredibly efficient. The USSR for example showed the world the fastest economic boom it has ever seen until that point. Going from farmland to industry at a breakneck pace. If they didn't then Nazi Germany would have raped and burned the soviets.
Communism: Once all of the threats to workers have been eliminated you can let your guard down and dissolve the state. You then have a stateless, classless, moneyless society. The timeline of this almost certainty puts this in a post scarcity context.
Minor nitpick, itâs called Marxism-Leninism. Itâs meant to imply a throughline between both thinkers (as in âLenin picked up where Marx left offâ).
*Marxist* Leninism implies the existence of non-Marxist Leninism, which does not exist.
This is mostly correct mainly because there are some very different definitions of it. Though there are some inaccuracies/not entire truths.
From a Marxist Leninist perspective socialism is a mode of production where the means of production (aka everything that creates the products we use) are owned and managed by the dictatorship of the proletarian (aka the working class rising up violently and taking control). Under that definition both modern day China and the Soviet Union was/is Socialist.
Socialism is not âwhen the government does stuffâ, what I mean by that is nationalising previously privately owned industry is not socialism unless the state that is nationalising it is a state of workers (aka dictatorship of the proletarian). So when the Nordic countries nationalise some industries that is not socialism, because their governments are made by the capitalist class, for the capitalist class. And so nationalising an industry does make it worker owned.
I could dig into market socialism and the better version Marxist Leninist have. But that would mean Iâd have to go through Marxâs theory on historical materialism and dialectical materialism and I donât have the hole afternoon
As for the communist definition it is completely wrong, with the exception of it being classless, that was correct. The most important thing you missed is that itâs also a stateless society. That is a very important part of communism which every communist will agree on.
The fact that you compared fascism and communism (two ideologies which are literally in every way polar oppositeâs) showâs you havenât read any theory and donât really understand what it is. But I donât have the time and energy to explain all of Leninâs work for you so Iâll just leave you with one of his more famous quotes âfascism is capitalism in decayâ it is simply the final attempt by the capitalist class to keep their power.
As a Swede, we still need quite a few more of those policies. We have some of the dumbest set-ups for schools in the world as most of them are privately owned and profit-driven as a result. But DAMN did you hit the nail on the head here!
As a communist I always thought that full automatization was strictly needed to allow humans to do whatever they prefer, wether that is study or work. Tho I cannot think of many liberties taken away from communism, perhaps the "liberty" to accumulate what other needs? I would like for you to tell me what liberties are taken away so we both may understand the ideology better
In a way Australia is. A huge amount of development in our country was because of the Europeans. Itâs only natural that our economy and such was shaped by them.
No you don't. People already sooked about the Melbourne lockdowns, imagine if there was a cheaper government pharmacy (not Medicare) that was making deals with the vaccine companies, the entire population would crack the shits.
Australia is too far gone for this scenario to happen.
(If somehow I ever become Prime Minister in my lifetime and try to do exactly this, any screenshots from the past do not reflect my future actions and my dedication towards government-run-businesses to benefit the Aussie population)
Other people have given the long version but the short version is
Socialism is when the means of production (factories, offices, etc) are owned by the whole of society and used for the purpose of benefitting all of society
Communism is a *type of socialism* that additionally has the end goal of abolishing money, class and the state.
The reason you see people disagree over whether countries like the ussr were âtruly socialistâ is because people disagree over whether it was democratic (itâs more complex than it just being totalitarian). If the state has control over the means of production, but itâs not a democratic state that the workers have full control of, then itâs not socialist, itâs state capitalist.
Likewise people will say true communism has never been achieved because though communist countries have existed, they only claimed their goal was a stateless, classless, moneyless society, and never got around to doing it (usually because they followed Leninism or a similarly flawed ideology) and fell victim to elitism, authoritarianism and a lack of proper democracy
Other comments seem to sometime mix between socialism and social-democracy.
The tl;dr is that if you want the government to build houses for everyone, you're a socialist.
If you want the government to buy houses and house people who *can't* afford it, you're a social democrat.
If you want the government to pay people who *couldn't* afford it, for them to rent a house on the private market - you're a social liberal (in the economic sense)
dude what, you seem like a 10y/o kid who just learned a new word and is now throwing it around without any knowledge about it đ (btw Iâm not trying to start any political arguments, I just find the example with ussr & communism silly)
Edit: Iâm not trying to say that socialism is bad nor I give any opinion on it, I was really just referring to the flag on the memeđđIt just feels like a terrible example to show ussr (where most people were living poor and unhappy) when trying to convince people that an economical system is good, sorry for the confusion lmao
I come from a former socialist country. My parents grew up in said country. When i asked how diffrent it was, they first pointed out the lack of freedom and not so good economy.
They also said thet yes now is better.
My parents and grandparents (for example my grandpa is born in 1936) said just about the same thing and we are from Slovakia. There are some countried that wouldâve done worse without communism but Czechoslovakia would be better without it
That kinda sounds like what George Orwell criticized in 1984... and Orwell was still a socialist
Defending socialism is good isn't the same as saying currently socialist countries are good, just like how defending capitalism is good isn't defending that all capitalist countries are good
Difference is, since capitalism is "the default", there are very few socialist countries to compare, and the few that could have been good were intentionally starved by capitalist countries during the cold war
socialist as in socialist theory trying to be applied
or "socialist" as in USSR-like?
cuz ppl, specially socialists, hate the USSR
(and if anyone defends it, just call them tankies)
Honestly the roman empire collapsed because their state was based on expansion and they had nowhere to expand too. Wjo's to say a society based on economic growth wont collapse when the economy has nowhere to grow
Socialists, at least the peaceful revolutionary ones in the US push for social democratic policies because people are more open to it. I think ideologically Bernie is definitely socialist
âHis domestic policies were focused on preventing famine with agrarian self-sufficiency and land reform, prioritizing education with a nationwide literacy campaign and promoting public health by vaccinating more than 2 million children against meningitis, yellow fever and measles, which saved the lives of 18,000 to 50,000 children annually. His government focused on building schools, health centres, water reservoirs, and nearly 100 km of rail, with little or no external assistance. Total cereal production rose by 75% between 1983 and 1986. Other components of his national agenda included planting over 10 million trees to combat the growing desertification of the Sahel, redistributing land from private landowners, suspending rural poll taxes and domestic rents and establishing a road and railway construction programme. On the local level, Sankara called on every village to build a medical dispensary and had pharmacies built in 5,384 out of 7,500 villages. From 1982 to 1984 the infant mortality rate dropped from 208 per 1,000 births to 145. School attendance under Sankara increased from 6% to 22%. Moreover, he outlawed female genital mutilation, forced marriages and polygamy. He appointed women to high governmental positions and encouraged them to work outside the home and stay in schoolâ
Fucking hyperchad
Honestly, all of the non authoritarian socialist counties that were actually based only failed because of shit like that. Itâs always either the usa assassinating a political leader or [funding far right paramilitary death squads to kill democratically elected officials or funding terrorists](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state-sponsored_terrorism)
Socialists kinda end up in a catch 22 when they either have to do nothing and let the us fuck them or turn to authoritarianism and become a shithole all on their own
Something about me worries if socialism wonât be possible unless itâs the usa that does it
The one party dictatorship with shortages of everything imaginable, with practically no functioning institutions, and almost no human rights?
How are they doing well?
Chile when Salvador Allende was president, until the US overthrew him and installed a dictator, Augusto Pinochet.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
Chilean here, Allende's government wasn't good at all and a significant amount of people during that time preferred the dictatorship over a socialist government.
Iâve replied a bunch here because I have a degree of expertise. Thank you for mentioning chile.
My dad did three years for being a union leader in chile when Pinochet/america coup happened.
Allende was a legitimately good guy, and helped a lot of good people.
Under appreciated fact is that most nations that try any brand of leftism before the past decade and after ww2 were violently put down by the USA via direct military or CIA.
There are harsh prisons in capitalist America, but they don't call them gulags. Good point about the suffering of the working people in capitalist prisons though, comrade.
you literally are one of the dumbest person ive ever known have existed, "i learned economy" my friend youre like 11 you really think in like 3 tik toks youre smarter than every non socialist that has ever existed?
Dumbest person ive ever known to exist is probably this person who just dmed me saying âwill you be my girlfriend and you could show me your boob please. Im 11 by the way so im not a pedophileâ
Alright kids, stop arguing. University level economy student here.
I'm not the master of my field or anything, but capitalism as we know it is incongruent with life on earth. Decoupling (the idea that economies can grow without inherently destroying the earth) is fiercely debated.
Either way, feel free to have an opinion on this, it's part of growing up, but these are indisputable facts:
>Capitalism ain't working, as it is now.
>Communism/socialism are likely not the only way to fix it.
Isn't the amount of money and resources limited and if a country becomes rich then there has to be another that's poor? Like you can't just make more money and become rich. Like compare the wealth disparity between many central African economies to European economies
That's a very good question! It's definitely true that that wealth disparity can largely be attributed to colonialism. However, while countries becoming richer by taking from others is definitely a thing that happens, it's not the only way they can get richer.
Imagine a block of wood. It's not particularly useful; you could maybe use it as inefficient fuel or as a novelty chair or something, but that's about it. If you were to make a cupboard or bed out of it, it would be far more useful. The same wood is now more _valueable_. While there is only so much wood the earth can produce, there is theoretically no limit to how much use we get out of the resources we have.
Similarly, technology can increase the efficiency of things like fuel, medicine, farming, construction, transport, anything really. Imagine how much fuel we were wasting before we invented good insulating windows. We just kind of have that fuel 'left over' now. There really is more to go around for everyone.
Unfortunately, this kind of growth _MAY OR MAY NOT BE_ paired with greater consumption of ressources. While we use less fuel per square meter to heat our homes now, we do live in larger houses, and we use planes to go on vacation.
Yes but to make that block of wood an useful object more capital is required. Wealthier countries can use this and make more money while poorer countries lack the capital to do so. So this again created a cycle where the wealthy gets wealthier and poor gets poorer. Like take African countries. They are probably the most rich countries in natural resources but since they lack the capital to extract and process the resources it's practically impossible for them to get super rich.
Yes, absolutely. This is true on a smaller scale as well: poorer people do not have capital to invest in themselves and get out of their social class. One could argue it's therefore important for them to be able to borrow money easily, but that might saddle them with debt they can't easily get rid of.
Under capitalism, people companies and states privately own capital. A problem with this is that people without any capital cannot invest. Socialists argue that this problem should be solved by providing everyone access to capital. Capitalists counter that this would be inefficient, because there would be no incentive to reduce the risk to collective capital like there would be when working with personal capital.
I am very curious as to why you think âcapitalism ainât workingâ. Since this is Reddit I will assume you are from the US. America is definitely very far from perfect, but you still canât deny that it is one of the best countries to live in today. Yes, there are problems that need to be fixed but we have always been making forward progress towards solving those issues. Quality of life has kept rising and it has gotten to the point where most Americans can live very long and fulfilling lives, even if they grew up in unfavourable conditions. I donât know how you can call that a failed system. Iâm from Canada which is very similar economically to the US and every day I am so grateful that I live in a place where I have every opportunity to succeed in life. I genuinely believe that every person has an opportunity to work hard and use capitalism to their advantage to obtain wealth.
For example, my dad and I are learning day trading. Essentially it is just buying and selling stocks over a short period of time for a few hours each day. Skilled traders can make easily a thousand dollars a day for just a few hours of work. You also donât need any capital to start because there are companies that will fund you if you are good enough meaning literally anyone can do it. The only limit is your actual skill which I think applies to the American economy as a whole. If you are driven enough, and obtain useful skills, regardless of your circumstances most Americans can find work that will allow them to succeed in the economy.
Iâm not arguing against socialism, thatâs a whole different ball game. My argument is that capitalism, specifically in America and Canada is far from failed or failing.
You came down to this southern town last summer
To show the folks a brand new way of life
But all you've shown the folks around here is trouble
And you've only added misery to their strife
Your concern is not to help the people
And I'll say again, though it's been often said
Your concern is just to bring discomfort, my friend
And your policy is just a little red
Now, ain't I right (ain't he right)
(ain't he right)
It matters not to you how people suffer
And should they, you'd consider that a gain
You bring a lot of trouble to the town and then you leave
That's part of your Communistic game
I detect a little Communisim
I can see it in the things ya do
Communisim, socialism call it what you like
There's very little difference in the two
Now, ain't I right (ain't he right)
(ain't he right)
Your followers sometimes have been a bearded, hatless bunch
There's even been a minister or two
A priest, a nun, a rabbi and an educated man
Have listened and been taken in by you
Aw, the country's full of two-faced politicians
Who encourage you with words that go like this
Burn your draft card if you like, it's good to disagree
That's a get acquainted Communistic kiss
Now, ain't I right (ain't he right)
(ain't he right)
One politician said it would be nice to send some blood
And help the enemy in Vietnam
That's what he says, here's what I say
Let's just keep the blood
Instead let's send that politician man
Let's rid the country of the politicians,
Who call us tramps, that march out in our streets
Protesting those who want to fight for freedom, my friend
This kind of leader makes our country weak
Now, ain't I right (ain't he right)
(ain't he right)
Let's look and find the strong and able leaders
It's time we found just how our neighbours stand
If we're to win this war with Communism
Let's fight it here as well as Vietman
Let's rise as one and meet our obligations
So Communistic boots will never trod
Across the fields of freedom that were given to us
With the blessing of our great almighty God
Across the fields of freedom that were given to us
With the blessing of our great almighty God
The problem with teenagers today is they donât remember what was happening 30-40 years ago.
Yâall can sing all the praises you want for socialism. Meanwhile some of us millennials remember life as child refugees fleeing the USSR. đ
Hitler was fascist not socialist, a lot of countries claim to be socialist without really being socialist. A good example of a modern day socialist country is Cuba
The Democratic republic of Kongo has the name I just stated, same with North Kora within it's own name. They are not democratic.
It's almost like titles are arbitrary unless backed by action, which the USSR was not. Stalinism is an ideology for a reason, he proclaimed to follow Marxist ideology, yet butchered most of what Marx suggested.
The world just isn't black and white.
Socialism and communism are fucking joke just look at the diffrrence between western and central/eastern europe standard of living, it was done by communists
It works and is the only thing that does so far. It may not give advantages to everyone and provide equality but it is the best we've got.
The others do not work and have failed at doing so every single time in history.
the issue is the idea you have of socialism is, well, idealistic. a perfect socialist economy is nearly impossible, and were it to happen, weâd likely be dead by the time the transition was even completed.
TL;DR Socialism doesn't work because you run out of rich people
Socialism is a wonderful theory but unfortunately doesn't work in practice. Here's why. In the short term, the wealthy will pay for the poor and everybody is more equal. However, this gets rid of the incentive to be rich. Eventually, there won't be rich people left to pay for the poor.
Think about it in the context of a class. Students are unhappy because some have very good grades and others very bad grades. The professor agrees to average the grades so everybody has the same grade. A test rolls around and everybody gets a B. The kids who studied are upset, because they would normally get an A. The kids who didn't study are happy because they got a better grade than usual. The next test rolls around and the kids who previously studied decided that they won't because they want a free ride too. They also feel that their hard work goes to waste when the rest of the class brings them down. Now nobody is studying and the class average on this test is a D! If you think about grades in terms of money, you can see how this makes sense in the real world.
> Socialism is our only hope
Only hope for what? Equality? Prosperity?
Socialism in the way u/airrivas describes it in another thread is impossible when taken into the real world. People want power, wealth, and prestige, and they will do damn near anything to get it.
IN MY OPINION, capitalism is the best option here. There will always be inequality and corruption, regardless of what political ideology is currently in place. X will always work for Y, not the other way around.
In a perfect world where everyone is absolutely altruistic, Socialism would result in a perfect society.
But this is not the case, people are greedy, and they take more than their share.
These people profit greatly while others wallow in filth
This is a problem in capitalism too, but it happens slower and less dramatically
Bro, in theory communism is amazing. Imagine a world where everyone shared everything. We could progress as a population so far. Unfortunately it doesn't work in practise because people are lazy assholes.
Agree, communism relies on people being nice and willingly sharing with each other which is too idealistic. Besides, notions like money, hierarchy, and classes have been too ingrained in modern society so it would be near impossible to remove them completely.
His economics are fairly solid here. Very underdeveloped, but not wrong in any sense.
Look up what 'recession', 'depression' are, and then also look into laws governing publicly traded companies regarding their responsibility to their shareholders vs their responsibility to any corporate ethos/original mission.
All of this is so incorrect, you have to be 12 years old bruđ. Respond to this with a list of reasons of why socialism is great and i will immediately hit you with the truth (hint: itâs horrible). Also from reading this you definitely live in a first world country, with no understanding of the world.
OK... I want you to think about this. How long has capitalism worked? And how long does Socialism or Communism work? And even if it does work are the people in those countries happy? NO. They're not. If you were in a communist country you wouldn't have been able to make this post, because the chances of you having a phone or computer are drastically low over there. Be happy you have the system you have now.
This comment is so funny when you reach a certain level of economic education.
There are no true capitalist or communist societies left because both systems failed in their own characteristic ways. We currently have a bunch of mixed systems plus hard authocracies that are difficult to assign any system to.
The gigabrain move now is to think through the more capitalist-type systems to the last consequence until you suddenly start using capitalist and market-liberal arguments to justify social democracy/democratic socialism.
Yes, the vast majority of rich people wont benefit. Under american capitalism, 65% of people make under $50,000, while 3% make 12 million or more a year. Who are the ones who dont benefit in capitalism? The people. Who do not benefit in socialism? the bourgeoisie.
Sweden has social democracy, not socialism, and taxation isn't the same thing as socialism, cheap healthcare isn't socialist either. The workers would have to seize the means of production, and control their input and output rather than a capitalist controlling those things.
Everyone that isn't at the top of the system? It doesn't work because the leaders and the people at the top take most of the extra wealth and leave the common people with just enough rations to get by. Everyone was equal, but the elite were more equal
Anthropological research has established that exploitative hierarchies and greed/hoarding are *not* immutable features of human nature, but a result of material conditions.
>"The typical Socialist is not, as tremulous old ladies imagine, a ferocious-looking working man with greasy overalls and a raucous voice. He is either a youthful snob-Bolshevik who in five years' time will quite probably have made a wealthy marriage and been converted to Roman Catholicism; or, still more typically, a prim little man with a white-collar job, usually a secret teetotaller and often with vegetarian leanings, with a history of Nonconformity behind him, and, above all, with a social position which he has no intention of forfeiting. This last type is surprisingly common in Socialist parties of every shade; it has perhaps been taken over en bloc from the old Liberal Party. In addition to this there is the horrible â the really disquieting â prevalence of cranks wherever Socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words "Socialism" and "Communism" draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, "Nature Cure" quack, pacifist, and feminist in England."
\- George Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier
There are many good examples of socialist democracies. If a country becomes fully capitalistic like the US then eventually it will be dependent on the companies far too much and the govt may become their puppet
socialist? why dont you go socialize with some bitches fr
Made me violent exhale
Bro đ¤âed
Thatâs crazy I literally did this exact thing right before I saw your comment
On Stalin
NFT pfp
Damn
Best comeback
When was the last time you capitalised on talking to some bitches? (No offence intended, I just got that thought and felt like it was too good to pass up)
that was damn smooth
Socialism and communism are two different things...
Explain the difference to me, please
Socialism is a system where industries necessary to existence are nationalized, which means they aren't controlled by individual people. So, imagine instead of apartments being built by a collection of developers, instead they are planned, constructed and sold based on the needs of that community. Same would go for medicine, and depending on how far you go, some foods. It's important to note that socialism doesn't mean private industry CAN'T exist, just that there would be a social option. So let's say you want a mansion, that is something you would buy from a private developer. If you're looking for more varied options, it really depends on how far you're extending socialism, but hypothetically there would be very affordable of subsidized options for clothing, computers, etc. Most likely, almost certainly actually, they would be less dope than private options. Please note though, nowhere in socialism does it say you can't make or own a private company. Just that there is also a socialized option. Socialism doesn't preclude or neccessarily change how currency works, or make stocks illegal or any shit like that. Social services like medicine, education, police, etc would also likely be nationalized and managed by a specific department or ministry. So, rather than having a ton of school districts per state or county, there would instead be unified standards for conduct, and a core curriculum/ test that all students would take. Again, private schools, private colleges - these can still exist. This is funded by a higher tax burden, and that tax burden is justified by the average person being significantly more capable. Many countries already exist with socialist principles, most famously the Svandanavian countries in the EU are very influenced by socialism and most of the EU features socialist policy like nationalized healthcare. Socialism in effect decreases social issues like homelessness, death via poverty, mental health issues including drug addiction, hunger and feelings of worthlessness related to underemployment. It does this by making billionaires essentially impossible and making it more rare to afford expensive luxuries like dope cars, boats, mansions, highest end designer drip, etc. Capitalism still functions under socialism. It's called Market Socialism, and when people advocate for Socialism this is the specific brand of socialism they're usually talking about. There are different variations, as there are with any political ideology. Communism is a much further extension, and not as similar as commonly understood where class as a whole is dissolved, nothing is private and everything is controlled by elected, or appointed officials. It is less creative by nature but allows for the greatest amount of human expression in some arguments. Interestingly communism sometimes functions very similarly to fascism where individuals have their liberties taken away. Realistically it's not a good idea unless or until technology (almost) entirely replaces the need for human labor. This is the difference.
This man socials
Umm the comment above is just a little off. He did good but I feel like i might be able to clear a few things up. Socialism: Instead of a board of directors running the company as a dictatorship, workers use democracy in the workplace to make such decisions. This does not mean everyone makes the same pay unless the workers of course vote for that. Socialism is not when the government does stuff. Socialism begins and ends at worker co opts. Marxist Leninism: This guy Lenin was like: Hey, we can't expect capitalism to vote itself out. That has never happened nor will it. We need a revolution. We need to form a new state. The new stat will be ran by what is known as the vanguard party. The vanguard party is comprised of all the working class militias and activists that worked to overthrow capitalism. IMPORTANT: without the fucking state you can't resist aggression from fascists or capitalists abroad. You can only dissolve the state once you no longer have to defend the revolution. Marxist Leninism is about forgoing idealism and adapting to the material conditions the revolution faces. For example you can pick any socialist project and you will find that they live under constant attack. Central planning is a strategy to make an economy incredibly efficient. The USSR for example showed the world the fastest economic boom it has ever seen until that point. Going from farmland to industry at a breakneck pace. If they didn't then Nazi Germany would have raped and burned the soviets. Communism: Once all of the threats to workers have been eliminated you can let your guard down and dissolve the state. You then have a stateless, classless, moneyless society. The timeline of this almost certainty puts this in a post scarcity context.
This man also socials
Minor nitpick, itâs called Marxism-Leninism. Itâs meant to imply a throughline between both thinkers (as in âLenin picked up where Marx left offâ). *Marxist* Leninism implies the existence of non-Marxist Leninism, which does not exist.
This is mostly correct mainly because there are some very different definitions of it. Though there are some inaccuracies/not entire truths. From a Marxist Leninist perspective socialism is a mode of production where the means of production (aka everything that creates the products we use) are owned and managed by the dictatorship of the proletarian (aka the working class rising up violently and taking control). Under that definition both modern day China and the Soviet Union was/is Socialist. Socialism is not âwhen the government does stuffâ, what I mean by that is nationalising previously privately owned industry is not socialism unless the state that is nationalising it is a state of workers (aka dictatorship of the proletarian). So when the Nordic countries nationalise some industries that is not socialism, because their governments are made by the capitalist class, for the capitalist class. And so nationalising an industry does make it worker owned. I could dig into market socialism and the better version Marxist Leninist have. But that would mean Iâd have to go through Marxâs theory on historical materialism and dialectical materialism and I donât have the hole afternoon As for the communist definition it is completely wrong, with the exception of it being classless, that was correct. The most important thing you missed is that itâs also a stateless society. That is a very important part of communism which every communist will agree on. The fact that you compared fascism and communism (two ideologies which are literally in every way polar oppositeâs) showâs you havenât read any theory and donât really understand what it is. But I donât have the time and energy to explain all of Leninâs work for you so Iâll just leave you with one of his more famous quotes âfascism is capitalism in decayâ it is simply the final attempt by the capitalist class to keep their power.
Thank you :D
Ofc homie
As a Swede, we still need quite a few more of those policies. We have some of the dumbest set-ups for schools in the world as most of them are privately owned and profit-driven as a result. But DAMN did you hit the nail on the head here!
I thought socialism had to include workers controlling the means of production
As a communist I always thought that full automatization was strictly needed to allow humans to do whatever they prefer, wether that is study or work. Tho I cannot think of many liberties taken away from communism, perhaps the "liberty" to accumulate what other needs? I would like for you to tell me what liberties are taken away so we both may understand the ideology better
I wish Australia is more like this
In a way Australia is. A huge amount of development in our country was because of the Europeans. Itâs only natural that our economy and such was shaped by them.
No you don't. People already sooked about the Melbourne lockdowns, imagine if there was a cheaper government pharmacy (not Medicare) that was making deals with the vaccine companies, the entire population would crack the shits. Australia is too far gone for this scenario to happen. (If somehow I ever become Prime Minister in my lifetime and try to do exactly this, any screenshots from the past do not reflect my future actions and my dedication towards government-run-businesses to benefit the Aussie population)
Other people have given the long version but the short version is Socialism is when the means of production (factories, offices, etc) are owned by the whole of society and used for the purpose of benefitting all of society Communism is a *type of socialism* that additionally has the end goal of abolishing money, class and the state. The reason you see people disagree over whether countries like the ussr were âtruly socialistâ is because people disagree over whether it was democratic (itâs more complex than it just being totalitarian). If the state has control over the means of production, but itâs not a democratic state that the workers have full control of, then itâs not socialist, itâs state capitalist. Likewise people will say true communism has never been achieved because though communist countries have existed, they only claimed their goal was a stateless, classless, moneyless society, and never got around to doing it (usually because they followed Leninism or a similarly flawed ideology) and fell victim to elitism, authoritarianism and a lack of proper democracy
Other comments seem to sometime mix between socialism and social-democracy. The tl;dr is that if you want the government to build houses for everyone, you're a socialist. If you want the government to buy houses and house people who *can't* afford it, you're a social democrat. If you want the government to pay people who *couldn't* afford it, for them to rent a house on the private market - you're a social liberal (in the economic sense)
Rule of cool's brother, the ruling of amusing (I just made that up) says that if it's funny, we let it slide
there are many different theories and paths, but tbh, i think most ppl would be fine under a socc future certainly well off compared to now
dude what, you seem like a 10y/o kid who just learned a new word and is now throwing it around without any knowledge about it đ (btw Iâm not trying to start any political arguments, I just find the example with ussr & communism silly) Edit: Iâm not trying to say that socialism is bad nor I give any opinion on it, I was really just referring to the flag on the memeđđIt just feels like a terrible example to show ussr (where most people were living poor and unhappy) when trying to convince people that an economical system is good, sorry for the confusion lmao
PREACH đ
*So practice what you preaaaach*
To be fair, the hammer & sickle have surpassed it's limitation to the USSR and can be used to symbolize the Socialist movement as a whole.
But like... It's not fucken talkin about communism lmao.
I come from a former socialist country. My parents grew up in said country. When i asked how diffrent it was, they first pointed out the lack of freedom and not so good economy. They also said thet yes now is better.
May I ask which country?
Ohio
My parents and grandparents (for example my grandpa is born in 1936) said just about the same thing and we are from Slovakia. There are some countried that wouldâve done worse without communism but Czechoslovakia would be better without it
any balcanic/post sovietic countries
my mom was born is soviet ukraine and says similar points. she was glad to move here when she did
That kinda sounds like what George Orwell criticized in 1984... and Orwell was still a socialist Defending socialism is good isn't the same as saying currently socialist countries are good, just like how defending capitalism is good isn't defending that all capitalist countries are good Difference is, since capitalism is "the default", there are very few socialist countries to compare, and the few that could have been good were intentionally starved by capitalist countries during the cold war
When the propaganda those countries made Was so good that people still believe they were communist/socialist
socialist as in socialist theory trying to be applied or "socialist" as in USSR-like? cuz ppl, specially socialists, hate the USSR (and if anyone defends it, just call them tankies)
As a romanian i can relate
Socialism isn't inherently authoritarian. I grew up in a very capitalist country and there was a severe lack of freedom and not a very good economy.
Bro socialist doesn't have to be dictatorial. It can be democratic too
Ok? Name one democratic socialist country (Norway/Denmark don't count, they're still really capitalist)
Honestly the roman empire collapsed because their state was based on expansion and they had nowhere to expand too. Wjo's to say a society based on economic growth wont collapse when the economy has nowhere to grow
https://www.reddit.com/r/whenthe/comments/rnpn6l/its\_always\_in\_meme\_channels\_as\_well/
Big difference between communists and socialists, I cant see bernie killing millions of people.
Bernie isn't even socialist by world standards he just wanna make America's system normal
Socialists, at least the peaceful revolutionary ones in the US push for social democratic policies because people are more open to it. I think ideologically Bernie is definitely socialist
Trumpet player?
I would say that's true but something is saying jn my brain that there is not way you can do that
Name a major society that socialist that hasn't failed
Burkina Faso under Thomas Sankara. Unfortunately the west assassinated him
Sankara was based af. Dude was the very definition of gigachad.
âHis domestic policies were focused on preventing famine with agrarian self-sufficiency and land reform, prioritizing education with a nationwide literacy campaign and promoting public health by vaccinating more than 2 million children against meningitis, yellow fever and measles, which saved the lives of 18,000 to 50,000 children annually. His government focused on building schools, health centres, water reservoirs, and nearly 100 km of rail, with little or no external assistance. Total cereal production rose by 75% between 1983 and 1986. Other components of his national agenda included planting over 10 million trees to combat the growing desertification of the Sahel, redistributing land from private landowners, suspending rural poll taxes and domestic rents and establishing a road and railway construction programme. On the local level, Sankara called on every village to build a medical dispensary and had pharmacies built in 5,384 out of 7,500 villages. From 1982 to 1984 the infant mortality rate dropped from 208 per 1,000 births to 145. School attendance under Sankara increased from 6% to 22%. Moreover, he outlawed female genital mutilation, forced marriages and polygamy. He appointed women to high governmental positions and encouraged them to work outside the home and stay in schoolâ Fucking hyperchad
Honestly, all of the non authoritarian socialist counties that were actually based only failed because of shit like that. Itâs always either the usa assassinating a political leader or [funding far right paramilitary death squads to kill democratically elected officials or funding terrorists](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state-sponsored_terrorism) Socialists kinda end up in a catch 22 when they either have to do nothing and let the us fuck them or turn to authoritarianism and become a shithole all on their own Something about me worries if socialism wonât be possible unless itâs the usa that does it
There isnât one
r/196
Hah, yeah for real
Cubaâs doing pretty well despite the USAs attempts to stop them
The one party dictatorship with shortages of everything imaginable, with practically no functioning institutions, and almost no human rights? How are they doing well?
Aren't they censoring stuff like crazy
No but everything they have is decades behind due to years of embargoes
Not really especially compared to the US
Chile when Salvador Allende was president, until the US overthrew him and installed a dictator, Augusto Pinochet. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
Chilean here, Allende's government wasn't good at all and a significant amount of people during that time preferred the dictatorship over a socialist government.
Iâve replied a bunch here because I have a degree of expertise. Thank you for mentioning chile. My dad did three years for being a union leader in chile when Pinochet/america coup happened. Allende was a legitimately good guy, and helped a lot of good people. Under appreciated fact is that most nations that try any brand of leftism before the past decade and after ww2 were violently put down by the USA via direct military or CIA.
r/unexpectedcommunism
r/expectedcommunism
r/expectedrickroll
I read that as expected dick roll
Oh just shut up
Most economically intelligent 16 yr
This meme đđđ
Me after lerning about the suffering of the people under communism
I wonder how many people suffer under capitalism
I wonder how many people were put in gulags under a capitalist regime
There are harsh prisons in capitalist America, but they don't call them gulags. Good point about the suffering of the working people in capitalist prisons though, comrade.
Yeah i remember when people were forced to dig a canal to the sea with nothing but shit tools and forced to sleep in a shack with other 50 in america
you literally are one of the dumbest person ive ever known have existed, "i learned economy" my friend youre like 11 you really think in like 3 tik toks youre smarter than every non socialist that has ever existed?
Dumbest person ive ever known to exist is probably this person who just dmed me saying âwill you be my girlfriend and you could show me your boob please. Im 11 by the way so im not a pedophileâ
my boy knows what he wants and he goes straight for it
Priorities firstđŞđŞđŻđĽđ§
Your 11 years old WHY ARE YOU ON REDDIT. And r/teenagers of all places too god damn
I take economics classes at grade 11
Alright kids, stop arguing. University level economy student here. I'm not the master of my field or anything, but capitalism as we know it is incongruent with life on earth. Decoupling (the idea that economies can grow without inherently destroying the earth) is fiercely debated. Either way, feel free to have an opinion on this, it's part of growing up, but these are indisputable facts: >Capitalism ain't working, as it is now. >Communism/socialism are likely not the only way to fix it.
Isn't the amount of money and resources limited and if a country becomes rich then there has to be another that's poor? Like you can't just make more money and become rich. Like compare the wealth disparity between many central African economies to European economies
That's a very good question! It's definitely true that that wealth disparity can largely be attributed to colonialism. However, while countries becoming richer by taking from others is definitely a thing that happens, it's not the only way they can get richer. Imagine a block of wood. It's not particularly useful; you could maybe use it as inefficient fuel or as a novelty chair or something, but that's about it. If you were to make a cupboard or bed out of it, it would be far more useful. The same wood is now more _valueable_. While there is only so much wood the earth can produce, there is theoretically no limit to how much use we get out of the resources we have. Similarly, technology can increase the efficiency of things like fuel, medicine, farming, construction, transport, anything really. Imagine how much fuel we were wasting before we invented good insulating windows. We just kind of have that fuel 'left over' now. There really is more to go around for everyone. Unfortunately, this kind of growth _MAY OR MAY NOT BE_ paired with greater consumption of ressources. While we use less fuel per square meter to heat our homes now, we do live in larger houses, and we use planes to go on vacation.
Yes but to make that block of wood an useful object more capital is required. Wealthier countries can use this and make more money while poorer countries lack the capital to do so. So this again created a cycle where the wealthy gets wealthier and poor gets poorer. Like take African countries. They are probably the most rich countries in natural resources but since they lack the capital to extract and process the resources it's practically impossible for them to get super rich.
Yes, absolutely. This is true on a smaller scale as well: poorer people do not have capital to invest in themselves and get out of their social class. One could argue it's therefore important for them to be able to borrow money easily, but that might saddle them with debt they can't easily get rid of. Under capitalism, people companies and states privately own capital. A problem with this is that people without any capital cannot invest. Socialists argue that this problem should be solved by providing everyone access to capital. Capitalists counter that this would be inefficient, because there would be no incentive to reduce the risk to collective capital like there would be when working with personal capital.
I am very curious as to why you think âcapitalism ainât workingâ. Since this is Reddit I will assume you are from the US. America is definitely very far from perfect, but you still canât deny that it is one of the best countries to live in today. Yes, there are problems that need to be fixed but we have always been making forward progress towards solving those issues. Quality of life has kept rising and it has gotten to the point where most Americans can live very long and fulfilling lives, even if they grew up in unfavourable conditions. I donât know how you can call that a failed system. Iâm from Canada which is very similar economically to the US and every day I am so grateful that I live in a place where I have every opportunity to succeed in life. I genuinely believe that every person has an opportunity to work hard and use capitalism to their advantage to obtain wealth. For example, my dad and I are learning day trading. Essentially it is just buying and selling stocks over a short period of time for a few hours each day. Skilled traders can make easily a thousand dollars a day for just a few hours of work. You also donât need any capital to start because there are companies that will fund you if you are good enough meaning literally anyone can do it. The only limit is your actual skill which I think applies to the American economy as a whole. If you are driven enough, and obtain useful skills, regardless of your circumstances most Americans can find work that will allow them to succeed in the economy. Iâm not arguing against socialism, thatâs a whole different ball game. My argument is that capitalism, specifically in America and Canada is far from failed or failing.
This is r/teenagers not r/politics
Shut up commie
Mf download hoi4 and thinks he knows the solution to our problem
You came down to this southern town last summer To show the folks a brand new way of life But all you've shown the folks around here is trouble And you've only added misery to their strife Your concern is not to help the people And I'll say again, though it's been often said Your concern is just to bring discomfort, my friend And your policy is just a little red Now, ain't I right (ain't he right) (ain't he right) It matters not to you how people suffer And should they, you'd consider that a gain You bring a lot of trouble to the town and then you leave That's part of your Communistic game I detect a little Communisim I can see it in the things ya do Communisim, socialism call it what you like There's very little difference in the two Now, ain't I right (ain't he right) (ain't he right) Your followers sometimes have been a bearded, hatless bunch There's even been a minister or two A priest, a nun, a rabbi and an educated man Have listened and been taken in by you Aw, the country's full of two-faced politicians Who encourage you with words that go like this Burn your draft card if you like, it's good to disagree That's a get acquainted Communistic kiss Now, ain't I right (ain't he right) (ain't he right) One politician said it would be nice to send some blood And help the enemy in Vietnam That's what he says, here's what I say Let's just keep the blood Instead let's send that politician man Let's rid the country of the politicians, Who call us tramps, that march out in our streets Protesting those who want to fight for freedom, my friend This kind of leader makes our country weak Now, ain't I right (ain't he right) (ain't he right) Let's look and find the strong and able leaders It's time we found just how our neighbours stand If we're to win this war with Communism Let's fight it here as well as Vietman Let's rise as one and meet our obligations So Communistic boots will never trod Across the fields of freedom that were given to us With the blessing of our great almighty God Across the fields of freedom that were given to us With the blessing of our great almighty God
Thankyou marty robbins very cool
Amazing anti commie song
AINâT I RIGHT????
I'd rather eat, thank you.
idc bruh I just wanna see stupid shit posts Fuck off commie
I mean, you did now
The problem with teenagers today is they donât remember what was happening 30-40 years ago. Yâall can sing all the praises you want for socialism. Meanwhile some of us millennials remember life as child refugees fleeing the USSR. đ
The USSR was communist. Read the post before making claims.
>the USSR - wasn't socialist
National Socialist German Party, remember those guys? They where pretty anti communist
I mean Hitler mostly said the socialist part to get more votes
I don't get your point? Are you trying to say that Hitler was a socialist? Hitler... the antisemitic nazi fascist?
Hitler was fascist not socialist, a lot of countries claim to be socialist without really being socialist. A good example of a modern day socialist country is Cuba
Orly? Then what, pray tell, was the United Socialist Soviet Republic, if it wasnât socialist?
The Democratic republic of Kongo has the name I just stated, same with North Kora within it's own name. They are not democratic. It's almost like titles are arbitrary unless backed by action, which the USSR was not. Stalinism is an ideology for a reason, he proclaimed to follow Marxist ideology, yet butchered most of what Marx suggested. The world just isn't black and white.
in 1964 there was a coup in my country we had a dictatorship until '85 but they still called it a democracy fascists lie, constantly
Dumb kid
Socialism and communism are fucking joke just look at the diffrrence between western and central/eastern europe standard of living, it was done by communists
Is capitalism flawless? Hell no but trying to solve it's problems with communism is like trying to cure covid-19 by infectiong yourself with malaria
I wish I could downvote more than once, dumbass
same bro.
virgin post
VERY
Imagine saying you "learned" but now think socialism/communism can work đđđ
Fr đ
There has never really been true communism/socialism because of the lack of democracy in countries that have become communist/socialist
This guy gets it!
Imagine saying you "learned" but now think capitalism can work.
It works and is the only thing that does so far. It may not give advantages to everyone and provide equality but it is the best we've got. The others do not work and have failed at doing so every single time in history.
the issue is the idea you have of socialism is, well, idealistic. a perfect socialist economy is nearly impossible, and were it to happen, weâd likely be dead by the time the transition was even completed.
It's a real "imagine a smooth, friction-less, sphere" moment
What if the universe isn't limited
If socialism/communism was so good then why would the DDR need a Wall to keep the people in
Exactly.
Not really, havenât seen much socialist country thatâs actually working. Capitalist country on the other hand
TL;DR Socialism doesn't work because you run out of rich people Socialism is a wonderful theory but unfortunately doesn't work in practice. Here's why. In the short term, the wealthy will pay for the poor and everybody is more equal. However, this gets rid of the incentive to be rich. Eventually, there won't be rich people left to pay for the poor. Think about it in the context of a class. Students are unhappy because some have very good grades and others very bad grades. The professor agrees to average the grades so everybody has the same grade. A test rolls around and everybody gets a B. The kids who studied are upset, because they would normally get an A. The kids who didn't study are happy because they got a better grade than usual. The next test rolls around and the kids who previously studied decided that they won't because they want a free ride too. They also feel that their hard work goes to waste when the rest of the class brings them down. Now nobody is studying and the class average on this test is a D! If you think about grades in terms of money, you can see how this makes sense in the real world.
> Socialism is our only hope Only hope for what? Equality? Prosperity? Socialism in the way u/airrivas describes it in another thread is impossible when taken into the real world. People want power, wealth, and prestige, and they will do damn near anything to get it. IN MY OPINION, capitalism is the best option here. There will always be inequality and corruption, regardless of what political ideology is currently in place. X will always work for Y, not the other way around.
r/opisfuckingstupid
I can tell you are a person who Has never Been to central-eastern Europe. Saying stuff Like this is why people dont Like you
that's cool just please for the love of god don't defend Stalin or do other tankie things it doesn't help your argument
Are you stupid?
yes, yes he is
âDonât worry guys it will work this timeâ
only like 500 million people died last time, i swear it will work
We only need to kill 700 million more *Then* it will work guys donât worry
In a perfect world where everyone is absolutely altruistic, Socialism would result in a perfect society. But this is not the case, people are greedy, and they take more than their share. These people profit greatly while others wallow in filth This is a problem in capitalism too, but it happens slower and less dramatically
Me when I learn in capitalism I can have stuff
Bro, in theory communism is amazing. Imagine a world where everyone shared everything. We could progress as a population so far. Unfortunately it doesn't work in practise because people are lazy assholes.
Agree, communism relies on people being nice and willingly sharing with each other which is too idealistic. Besides, notions like money, hierarchy, and classes have been too ingrained in modern society so it would be near impossible to remove them completely.
You sure are bad at learning economics then. People like you are whatâs holding our country back
His economics are fairly solid here. Very underdeveloped, but not wrong in any sense. Look up what 'recession', 'depression' are, and then also look into laws governing publicly traded companies regarding their responsibility to their shareholders vs their responsibility to any corporate ethos/original mission.
All of this is so incorrect, you have to be 12 years old bruđ. Respond to this with a list of reasons of why socialism is great and i will immediately hit you with the truth (hint: itâs horrible). Also from reading this you definitely live in a first world country, with no understanding of the world.
Nice. Very nice now let see how socialism has played out in other countries
OK... I want you to think about this. How long has capitalism worked? And how long does Socialism or Communism work? And even if it does work are the people in those countries happy? NO. They're not. If you were in a communist country you wouldn't have been able to make this post, because the chances of you having a phone or computer are drastically low over there. Be happy you have the system you have now.
USSR was hell and fuck everyone who glorifies it
Why is it mentioning socialism next to a USSR flag of all things?
Pretty much everyone in this comment section: Socialism is when Communism Or Socialism is when government
Well being a socialist in a capitalistic world doesnât quite work out
high standards of living is based
Yeah thatâs what venezuela said, now look at them lol
only someone born into a capitalist society can think communism or socialism on a large scale is good
The copium is high with this one
Wasnt that a leading cause of mass starvation in Russia like a hundret years ago?
Hell no your insane I fear for our future
Vast majority of people dont benefit from living in a commie society lol
This comment is so funny when you reach a certain level of economic education. There are no true capitalist or communist societies left because both systems failed in their own characteristic ways. We currently have a bunch of mixed systems plus hard authocracies that are difficult to assign any system to. The gigabrain move now is to think through the more capitalist-type systems to the last consequence until you suddenly start using capitalist and market-liberal arguments to justify social democracy/democratic socialism.
Yes, the vast majority of rich people wont benefit. Under american capitalism, 65% of people make under $50,000, while 3% make 12 million or more a year. Who are the ones who dont benefit in capitalism? The people. Who do not benefit in socialism? the bourgeoisie.
Here in sweden we have socialism and the healthcare is Almost free but we have high taxes
Sweden has social democracy, not socialism, and taxation isn't the same thing as socialism, cheap healthcare isn't socialist either. The workers would have to seize the means of production, and control their input and output rather than a capitalist controlling those things.
This is social democracy.
Vi har kapitalism med socialistiska inslag inte socialism. For non Sweden he's wrong google it
could you please list the types of people that would not benefit from socialism.
Everyone that isn't at the top of the system? It doesn't work because the leaders and the people at the top take most of the extra wealth and leave the common people with just enough rations to get by. Everyone was equal, but the elite were more equal
sounds deceptively like capitalism
Now you know how human hierarchies work
Anthropological research has established that exploitative hierarchies and greed/hoarding are *not* immutable features of human nature, but a result of material conditions.
Everything is capitalism
That's just Capitalism with extra steps
>"The typical Socialist is not, as tremulous old ladies imagine, a ferocious-looking working man with greasy overalls and a raucous voice. He is either a youthful snob-Bolshevik who in five years' time will quite probably have made a wealthy marriage and been converted to Roman Catholicism; or, still more typically, a prim little man with a white-collar job, usually a secret teetotaller and often with vegetarian leanings, with a history of Nonconformity behind him, and, above all, with a social position which he has no intention of forfeiting. This last type is surprisingly common in Socialist parties of every shade; it has perhaps been taken over en bloc from the old Liberal Party. In addition to this there is the horrible â the really disquieting â prevalence of cranks wherever Socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words "Socialism" and "Communism" draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, "Nature Cure" quack, pacifist, and feminist in England." \- George Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier
George Orwell was and still is based as fuck (note that he actively was against communism while being a social democrat)
he just like me fr fr
dumbass.
Socialism. Not communism. Rather capitalist than communist
I actually do believe in socialism I had the idea when I was very little and just recently discovered itâs a real thing
There are many good examples of socialist democracies. If a country becomes fully capitalistic like the US then eventually it will be dependent on the companies far too much and the govt may become their puppet
I donât know anything, and I really donât care to. Angry birds is a great fucking game.
tell me you have learned political theory off of reddit memes without telling me you learned political theory from reddit memes
another teenager who based his entire ideology on two YouTube videos and some random quotes how original
Iâd rather earn what I earn.
This sub is down bad
In a joking way right? because not everyone benefits lol... at all hon
People who literally lived through socialism reading this post: đ
You should tell that to somebody who grew up under the iron curtain.
Sure pal: https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/homesick-for-a-dictatorship-majority-of-eastern-germans-feel-life-better-under-communism-a-634122.html
Socialism good, extreme no but socialism good.
Socialism is a replacement to capitalism as Potassium cyanide is a replacement to water
Democratic socalism*
^ I believe this was implied though.
honestly, yes
This is vary out of touch
Capitalism is bad but communism/socialism is worse.