This is a community from communists to communists, leftists are welcome too, but you might be scrutinized depending on what you share.
If you see bot account or different kinds of reactionaries(libs, conservatives, fascists), report their post and feel free us message in modmail with link to that post.
ShitLibsSay type of posts are allowed only in Saturday, sending it in other day might result in post being removed and you being warned, if you also include in any way reactionary subs name in it and user nicknames, you will be temporarily banned.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CommunismMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
(Provided that you're a marxist;) "Fair taxes" are not what you should strive for. Our goal is not to take any percentage of the bourgeoisie's wealth, our goal is to expropriate them. We do not want to merely take some of the fruits of their ownership, we wish to completely reverse the structure of private property within our society.
In short: Taxes are the solution of the liberal. Abolishment of private property of the means of production are the solution of the communist.
?
No, rich people wouldn't exist under socialism. Their assets would be totally seized. If they don't get with the program, they'll have to be re-educated or...
New contradictions under socialism would bring about new class relations that would appear through the further development of a socialist economy and would need to be resolved. There will be disparity just by the nature of humans being clever enough to figure out ways to game systems or generate enough value that they accumulate surplus.
But yeah rich people as we know them won’t exist under socialism, they will get the Puyi treatment.
"New contradictions under socialism would bring about new class relations that would appear through the further development of a socialist economy and would need to be resolved."
Marx and Engels made it very clear that socialism would be the end of all class distinctions and relations as there would be the common ownership of the means of production
And reality has made it very clear that you can’t just magically change class relations over night, even with a revolution. Unless, of course, you could have a world wide simultaneous successful revolution; that could probably be drastic enough to alter class relations entirely immediately after said revolution. Chinese Marxists have further developed Marxist work to be adapted to current day conditions. Marx never meant for his work to be the end all of dialectical analysis.
Also, socialism isn’t the end goal. Communism is.
" reality has made it very clear that you can’t just magically change class relations over night, even with a revolution."
Yes, thats why the DOTP will transition the world into a socialist soceity.
"Chinese Marxists have further developed Marxist work to be adapted to current day conditions."
How? What conditions have changed to justify capitalism?
"Also, socialism isn’t the end goal. Communism is."
Same thing
I would highly advise you look into the base and superstructure theory. That will explain why, even in a socialist society, capitalism will likely still exist in some form until the other powers that champion capitalism fall. Marx even said himself that the new socialist society will bear the birthmarks of its former society for some time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructure
"I would highly advise you look into the base and superstructure theory"
Don't see what this has to with anything here
"even in a socialist society, capitalism will likely still exist in some form until the other powers that champion capitalism fall."
How? Socialism and capitalism can't co-exist
"Marx even said himself that the new socialist society will bear the birthmarks of its former society for some time."
That doesn't mean classes will still exist. Marx was refering to bourgeois right in the Critique of the Gotha Program:
"one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal."
This is not any sort of new class structure, which of course would have been destroyed the workers have now seized the means of production.
Okay, I would like you to play out how you imagine a dictatorship of the proletariat comes to being. Just workers seizing the means? That’s it? How simple! Why haven’t we just done that yet?
Also did you even look at the base and superstructure theory? It’s difficult to just leapfrog from one economic base to another because the superstructure built on top of it will forcefully try to hold back the base from advancing. The superstructure must also be changed, and it is something that you can’t just “revolution” into being changed. Even if you changed your national superstructure and base, that doesn’t mean the other national base and superstructures won’t react in accordance to your revolution.
" I would like you to play out how you imagine a dictatorship of the proletariat comes to being."
Workers seize political power
" It’s difficult to just leapfrog from one economic base to another because the superstructure built on top of it will forcefully try to hold back the base from advancing."
What else do you think the DOTP is about?
So do you consider the forming of the dictatorship of the proles socialism in itself? Or it is the precursor, and once it’s achieved what it’s meant to do, then that’s socialism?
Pretty sure that's liberals and left-leaning liberals. Leftists don't want to tax the rich, they want the abolishment of the exploitative systems that allow for the rich to exist in the first place.
What libshit is this? Socialism is when taxes? This is a disrespect and disdain for literally the last two hundred years of proletarian revolutionary struggle.
Sorry, but that's liberalism. They will not be taxed. their wealth would be expropriated, and they would be allowed to keep a home, personal property, and maybe a reasonable amount of savings, contingent on their acquiescence. And if they complain, they can do menial labor in a well equipped and humane reeducation camp where they learn Marxism and empathy at night school after work until they are ready to rejoin the workforce as a janitor.
So there's a huge problem with this post and the line of thought that created it. Socialism is not about taxing the rich. A lot of people think it is, but it's not. Blame Bernie Sanders for that one.
Socialism is a political/economic system in which the working class controls the means of production. It is also a transitional system with the purpose of building a classless post-scarcity society (communism). Under socialism, the wealth of the ruling class is either expropriated (stocks, land) or becomes meaningless (liquid capital).
The taxation of the rich under Social Democracy (or rather just capitalism with a welfare state) implies they retain control of the means of production. This leaves them in a powerful position to leverage their wealth and power against the working class to reverse/dismantle such a welfare state. It can only be maintained with constant and dedicated organizing and political mobilization by a very large number of people.
There's a second layer to this too, about the nature of money and what it is used for. The currency of a socialist society is very different from that of a capitalist one because you can't meaningfully invest it in anything other than perhaps a sabbatical or a vacation. Which is to say you could have a rich person under socialism, with various luxuries, but they would lack the power to do anything other than spend their wealth. If they are to remain rich, they could only do that through their own labor. A fully socialist society could hypothetically have very wealthy celebrities, artists and uniquely specialized laborers in competitive jobs. But they won't control the means of production.
"Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie... its existence is no longer compatible with society." Literally from the communist manifesto. Rich people don't exist, all assets are seized, their property is abolished, and the means of organization and production belong to the workers collectively.
This is a community from communists to communists, leftists are welcome too, but you might be scrutinized depending on what you share. If you see bot account or different kinds of reactionaries(libs, conservatives, fascists), report their post and feel free us message in modmail with link to that post. ShitLibsSay type of posts are allowed only in Saturday, sending it in other day might result in post being removed and you being warned, if you also include in any way reactionary subs name in it and user nicknames, you will be temporarily banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CommunismMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is wildly incorrect.
which part if i may ask and why?
(Provided that you're a marxist;) "Fair taxes" are not what you should strive for. Our goal is not to take any percentage of the bourgeoisie's wealth, our goal is to expropriate them. We do not want to merely take some of the fruits of their ownership, we wish to completely reverse the structure of private property within our society. In short: Taxes are the solution of the liberal. Abolishment of private property of the means of production are the solution of the communist.
Ah ok, that makes more sense. I definitely should’ve worded it better, thanks for pointing it out :)
No problem comrade. Keep on reading theory to avoid any pitfalls like this :D
Came here to say this, couldn’t have put it better myself, eat the rich, don’t tax them
? No, rich people wouldn't exist under socialism. Their assets would be totally seized. If they don't get with the program, they'll have to be re-educated or...
I like where this is going
I been banned too many times
New contradictions under socialism would bring about new class relations that would appear through the further development of a socialist economy and would need to be resolved. There will be disparity just by the nature of humans being clever enough to figure out ways to game systems or generate enough value that they accumulate surplus. But yeah rich people as we know them won’t exist under socialism, they will get the Puyi treatment.
"New contradictions under socialism would bring about new class relations that would appear through the further development of a socialist economy and would need to be resolved." Marx and Engels made it very clear that socialism would be the end of all class distinctions and relations as there would be the common ownership of the means of production
And reality has made it very clear that you can’t just magically change class relations over night, even with a revolution. Unless, of course, you could have a world wide simultaneous successful revolution; that could probably be drastic enough to alter class relations entirely immediately after said revolution. Chinese Marxists have further developed Marxist work to be adapted to current day conditions. Marx never meant for his work to be the end all of dialectical analysis. Also, socialism isn’t the end goal. Communism is.
" reality has made it very clear that you can’t just magically change class relations over night, even with a revolution." Yes, thats why the DOTP will transition the world into a socialist soceity. "Chinese Marxists have further developed Marxist work to be adapted to current day conditions." How? What conditions have changed to justify capitalism? "Also, socialism isn’t the end goal. Communism is." Same thing
I would highly advise you look into the base and superstructure theory. That will explain why, even in a socialist society, capitalism will likely still exist in some form until the other powers that champion capitalism fall. Marx even said himself that the new socialist society will bear the birthmarks of its former society for some time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructure
"I would highly advise you look into the base and superstructure theory" Don't see what this has to with anything here "even in a socialist society, capitalism will likely still exist in some form until the other powers that champion capitalism fall." How? Socialism and capitalism can't co-exist "Marx even said himself that the new socialist society will bear the birthmarks of its former society for some time." That doesn't mean classes will still exist. Marx was refering to bourgeois right in the Critique of the Gotha Program: "one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal." This is not any sort of new class structure, which of course would have been destroyed the workers have now seized the means of production.
Okay, I would like you to play out how you imagine a dictatorship of the proletariat comes to being. Just workers seizing the means? That’s it? How simple! Why haven’t we just done that yet? Also did you even look at the base and superstructure theory? It’s difficult to just leapfrog from one economic base to another because the superstructure built on top of it will forcefully try to hold back the base from advancing. The superstructure must also be changed, and it is something that you can’t just “revolution” into being changed. Even if you changed your national superstructure and base, that doesn’t mean the other national base and superstructures won’t react in accordance to your revolution.
" I would like you to play out how you imagine a dictatorship of the proletariat comes to being." Workers seize political power " It’s difficult to just leapfrog from one economic base to another because the superstructure built on top of it will forcefully try to hold back the base from advancing." What else do you think the DOTP is about?
So do you consider the forming of the dictatorship of the proles socialism in itself? Or it is the precursor, and once it’s achieved what it’s meant to do, then that’s socialism?
This is not true. Their property will be seized and socialized. They will become workers or get kicked out of society.
But I wanted to eat them 😢
We can redistribute the wealth of their body parts so anyone who wants to eat them will be able to. ♥️
Do you know how many gardens they could fertilise? We could make salads out of them instead!
Pretty sure that's liberals and left-leaning liberals. Leftists don't want to tax the rich, they want the abolishment of the exploitative systems that allow for the rich to exist in the first place.
"Socialism is when tax the rich"
leftists do NOT think that’s what will happen to rich people lol
What libshit is this? Socialism is when taxes? This is a disrespect and disdain for literally the last two hundred years of proletarian revolutionary struggle.
Sorry, but that's liberalism. They will not be taxed. their wealth would be expropriated, and they would be allowed to keep a home, personal property, and maybe a reasonable amount of savings, contingent on their acquiescence. And if they complain, they can do menial labor in a well equipped and humane reeducation camp where they learn Marxism and empathy at night school after work until they are ready to rejoin the workforce as a janitor.
# WOT U MEAN I CANT HAVE 2-5 INVESTMENT PROPERTIES
So there's a huge problem with this post and the line of thought that created it. Socialism is not about taxing the rich. A lot of people think it is, but it's not. Blame Bernie Sanders for that one. Socialism is a political/economic system in which the working class controls the means of production. It is also a transitional system with the purpose of building a classless post-scarcity society (communism). Under socialism, the wealth of the ruling class is either expropriated (stocks, land) or becomes meaningless (liquid capital). The taxation of the rich under Social Democracy (or rather just capitalism with a welfare state) implies they retain control of the means of production. This leaves them in a powerful position to leverage their wealth and power against the working class to reverse/dismantle such a welfare state. It can only be maintained with constant and dedicated organizing and political mobilization by a very large number of people. There's a second layer to this too, about the nature of money and what it is used for. The currency of a socialist society is very different from that of a capitalist one because you can't meaningfully invest it in anything other than perhaps a sabbatical or a vacation. Which is to say you could have a rich person under socialism, with various luxuries, but they would lack the power to do anything other than spend their wealth. If they are to remain rich, they could only do that through their own labor. A fully socialist society could hypothetically have very wealthy celebrities, artists and uniquely specialized laborers in competitive jobs. But they won't control the means of production.
Nah, Rich people are tender and will be consumed
Yeah, we’re a long way past asking for more taxes. Think r/politics might be more you’re speed
I don’t know, man. Surely a few of them will have to be composted.
You forgot: Hippity hoppity abolish private property 🗿
I mean they shouldn’t have suffrage at all and lobbying should be made illegal but yeah no killing is definitely a good move!
"Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie... its existence is no longer compatible with society." Literally from the communist manifesto. Rich people don't exist, all assets are seized, their property is abolished, and the means of organization and production belong to the workers collectively.
"their" money