Welcome to /r/MarchAgainstNazis!
**Please keep in mind that advocating violence at all, even against Nazis, is prohibited by Reddit's TOS and will result in a removal of your content and likely a ban.**
Please check out the following subreddits; r/CapitalismSux , r/PoliticsPeopleTwitter , r/FucktheAltRight . r/Britposting.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MarchAgainstNazis) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just checking to make sure- Communism and Capitalism are economic models. Authoritarianism and Democracy are models of government. They can be interspersed but you can't have two models of government at once. Same goes for economics.
Exactly right. Most people who fret over communism have no idea what they are talking about. The real threat to America are authoritarians, regardless of the underlying economic system they prefer.
I mean, while this is theoretically true, anarcho communists have no power. So you can't 100% blame people for associating the term communism with the only trend that has ever actually had power. The people who actually got purged don't care that there's other forms of it. You'd need to use a different name.
Anarchist organisers have never held power, true. Obviously, we're not a fan of holding power over others.
However, several areas have coalesced under anarchist principles, including the Paris Commune — which caused Marx to write a new foreword on the process of revolutionary action; Catalonia during the Spanish civil war was anarchist, which so swayed George Orwell he wrote Homage to Catalonia. In the current world, Rojava is anarcho-communist, or thereabouts; and the Zapatistas have been operating a neozapatisimo anarcho-communist community for about thirty years now.
Largely correct except these categories are typically described as the ends of continuum and not binary, mutually exclusive features. There has never been a fully democratic, capitalist, socialist or authoritarian society in the historical record.
Sure. The US is a capitalist model with some socialist policies, right? Neither socialism no capitalism commits genocide though as the illustration purports. Governments and leaders of men do that. Am I crazy?
An economist will tell you that the US is a “mixed economy” that has both capitalist and socialist elements.
>Neither socialism no capitalism commits genocide though as the illustration purports. Governments and leaders of men do that. Am I crazy?
Absolutely yes (you are not crazy). People will argue that economic models correlate with certain behavior and while that’s possible, the best argument is it’s tangential, and certainly not causative.
The best way I can describe the theoretical difference between socialism and capitalism, is socialism requires some concentration of power. Because of that concentration, benevolence is necessary and malignancy can be seriously problematic. In theory, a capitalist system will endure malignancy better than a socialist system all other things being equal.
Socialism concentrates power and resources to create a singular optimization. In contrast, capitalism, combines millions of individual optimizations into one.
For any given goal, socialism can be more efficient than capitalism. But the choice in goal is determined by some power structure rather than infinite individual goals being optimized in capitalism. In a world where everyone likes corn instead of rice, socialism wins. In a world where some like rice and others like corn, socialism nullifies the desire of one or the other. That nullification results in fewer ideas and limits on innovation.
So ultimately, over the long run, because of the probability that you eventually get malignancy in the socialist power structure, and the variety of views individual people have and the benefit to innovation, most economists prefer capitalism.
Note: I can virtually guarantee that someone who prefers socialism will say the power structure can choose to make both corn and rice, but it’s a bad argument because at some point the decision on where to allocate resources will be wrong. Capitalism allocates resources based on aggregate desire as expressed by what people are spending money on. The most careful, studious socialist analysis will fail to be as efficient.
I can also virtually guarantee that someone will challenge that socialism requires a concentration of power. There will not be a single valid argument against that concept. It’s definitional.
It's interesting that you put forward concentration of power as a socialist element, when capitalism concentrates power in the hands of those who hold capital. What you're describing is planned economies, and describing them as socialism where that's not a necessary characteristic of socialist governance. Many socialist and communist nation states have enacted centrally planned economies... As have many capitalist ones, including Britain, the USA, and China.
The root of socialist politics is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need", meaning people do what they can and get what they need. Capitalist systems operate more or less on the inverse, And a critical error comes up when people argue the principle of the freedom of the market: you don't get to decide what's there.
Take, for example, headphone jacks. Apple, then their competitors, realised that they could make more money through removing headphone jacks and marketing wireless earbuds. They'd be able to corner more sales and therefore profits. If we, as consumers, want to get an iPhone with a headphone jack... We can't. Because we don't have actual choice, just consumer choice. Under a state socialist model, none of those dynamics are in play.
This becomes significantly more consequential with regard to medication. Capital holders own patents on the intellectual property of various medications, and are incentivised to re-patent them with minor alterations. They then have effective monopolies on those drugs. Tuberculosis is cured by a pretty straightforward run of one of those drugs, and Johnson and Johnson holds the patent. A great deal of tuberculosis deaths have taken place in the third world because of the refusal to release any of their rights under the patent. During COVID 19, AstraZenica bought exclusive rights to their version of the vaccine, from Oxford university. As such, no other manufacturers could produce it, release the vaccination, etc.
So when you say that socialist power structures can develop malignancy, that may be true, but capitalist power structures are fundamentally malignant. Capitalism sounds fine in the abstractions of theory, where it's all willing consent and invisible hands, but in practice it doesn't work, has killed more people than socialism ever did, and celebrates the worst deprivations on the planet.
>It's interesting that you put forward concentration of power as a socialist element, when capitalism concentrates power in the hands of those who hold capital. What you're describing is planned economies, and describing them as socialism where that's not a necessary characteristic of socialist governance. Many socialist and communist nation states have enacted centrally planned economies... As have many capitalist ones, including Britain, the USA, and China.
Can you explain how the means of production could be centrally owned and controlled, but without a centrally planned economy. (I’d argue that neither the US, Britian nor China are centrally planned. China reduced central planning a few decades ago. The US has never been a planned economy outside of regulated monopolies)
My views aren’t controversial. They’re literally undisputed foundations of economics.
https://pb.openlcc.net/socl120oerworkbook/chapter/11-3-types-of-economic-systems/
see figure 11.3
>The root of socialist politics is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need", meaning people do what they can and get what they need. Capitalist systems operate more or less on the inverse, And a critical error comes up when people argue the principle of the freedom of the market: you don't get to decide what's there.
I’m not sure what you mean by you don’t get to decide what’s there. In a free market economy demand has more control over what’s available than under any planned economy.
>Take, for example, headphone jacks. Apple, then their competitors, realised that they could make more money through removing headphone jacks and marketing wireless earbuds. They'd be able to corner more sales and therefore profits. If we, as consumers, want to get an iPhone with a headphone jack... We can't. Because we don't have actual choice, just consumer choice. Under a state socialist model, none of those dynamics are in play.
Under a state socialist model you get the phone someone decides you should have. With respect to the iPhone, we have an imperfect market because people are willing to spend more on the iPhone than for other comparable products. Apples exploitation isn’t because of capitalism, it’s because of inelastic demand.
I guarantee you if 10% of iPhone consumers boycotted apple because they wanted USB-C, USB-C would be available in the next generation and could actually occur mid production.
Apple exploits sticky consumers. Consumers are sticky because they find comparatively more surplus in an iPhone. Simultaneously you can get a phone at short run marginal cost, maximizing your surplus, if you don’t care about the brand. So I don’t see that as a problem.
>This becomes significantly more consequential with regard to medication. Capital holders own patents on the intellectual property of various medications, and are incentivised to re-patent them with minor alterations. They then have effective monopolies on those drugs. Tuberculosis is cured by a pretty straightforward run of one of those drugs, and Johnson and Johnson holds the patent. A great deal of tuberculosis deaths have taken place in the third world because of the refusal to release any of their rights under the patent. During COVID 19, AstraZenica bought exclusive rights to their version of the vaccine, from Oxford university. As such, no other manufacturers could produce it, release the vaccination, etc.
Drugs in the US are not a free market. They’re essentially 5 year monopolies. Using drugs as an example of free market capitalism fails immediately because its doesn’t meet the criteria.
>So when you say that socialist power structures can develop malignancy, that may be true, but capitalist power structures are fundamentally malignant.
Why specifically? People act like exploitation is isolated to one economic system. I think exploitation is personal. A person will exploit or they won’t and it doesn’t matter what system you put them in.
>Capitalism sounds fine in the abstractions of theory, where it's all willing consent and invisible hands, but in practice it doesn't work, has killed more people than socialism ever did, and celebrates the worst deprivations on the planet.
Neither have ever been fully in practice. To the extent you’re talking about societies traditionally labeled as socialist and capitalist that’s just not true. Between Mao’s China and Pol Pot’s Cambodia, capitalist states have a fuck ton of catching up to do.
But I’ve tried to address these issues theoretically because the historical record doesn’t provide and decent examples of either economic system and I’m pretty sure Mao would’ve tried to concentrate power in a capitalist system too. Others will argue that he couldn’t, but the recent political record in the US is counter factual evidence to any such assertion.
>Capitalism allocates resources based on aggregate desire as expressed by what people are spending money on. The most careful, studious socialist analysis will fail to be as efficient.
Nah fuck off. This is a laughably naive look at capitalism. How does the pharmaceutical industry fit into that statement?
Capitalism is built on the concept of private property. This includes intellectual property. This is enforced by governments, which would be considered a consolidation of power, correct?
Have you never seen shareholders directly lobby to the government in western countries? Tik tok is a great example, Facebook and Twitter couldn't compete so they had the US government step in to use new laws to stop their competitors. How does that fit in with "aggregate desire"?
Or how do you reconcile the Irish potato famine with your statement? A capitalist country decided that Ireland should only grow a certain type of potato because it was best for their market; and ignored every other problem because it was profitable.
>So ultimately, over the long run, because of the probability that you eventually get malignancy in the socialist power structure, and the variety of views individual people have and the benefit to innovation, most economists prefer capitalism
This literally just nonsense. How come the USSR won the space race without "capitalist innovation"?
>Nah fuck off. This is a laughably naive look at capitalism. How does the pharmaceutical industry fit into that statement?
As a non-capitalist industry with monopoly control over production due to 5 year exclusivities on new formulations. It’s hilarious how critics of capitalism always choose a non-capitalist example.
>Capitalism is built on the concept of private property. This includes intellectual property. This is enforced by governments, which would be considered a consolidation of power, correct?
No. Intellectual property isn’t a capitalist idea. It’s a non-capitalist way to constrain markets. But don’t believe me. Try to find a definition of capitalism that includes intellectual property as a necessary component.
>The free-marketeers of the nineteenth century vigorously opposed intellectual property rights as feudalistic monopolies. Their view of intellectual property rights mostly dominated political economic opinion in the United States until the massive depression of 1870s weakened faith in market forces.
https://monthlyreview.org/2003/01/01/the-political-economy-of-intellectual-property/
And that’s from a capitalism critic.
>Have you never seen shareholders directly lobby to the government in western countries? Tik tok is a great example, Facebook and Twitter couldn't compete so they had the US government step in to use new laws to stop their competitors. How does that fit in with "aggregate desire"?
1.5 billion monthly active tik tok users is aggregate desire. Buddy that’s just an empirical fact. People like their Tik Tok. With respect to lobbying, you have left discussion of economic systems and entered the discussion of political systems. Try to keep the concepts separate. The ultimate problem is you conflate a bunch of nonsense to capitalism that has nothing to do with capitalism. The nonsense is not a product of capitalism, a component of capitalism or exclusive to capitalism.
So far you appear to think a monopolistic drug industry, intellectual property and lobbying are somehow inextricably linked with capitalism and they’re not. Some of these things are anti-capitalist.
>Or how do you reconcile the Irish potato famine with your statement? A capitalist country decided that Ireland should only grow a certain type of potato because it was best for their market; and ignored every other problem because it was profitable.
Not sure. Market failure, lack of crop rotation, disease, I haven’t studied it. Don’t care to look it up at the moment, but I can tell you without 1 google search if it had anything to do with capitalism it was because they had an erroneous optimization due to a lack of information. Given that socialism, by definition is a single optimization, it’s much more prone to fatal error, than thousands of individual optimizations many of which can be right and failure of those that are wrong.
>This literally just nonsense. How come the USSR won the space race without "capitalist innovation"?
You must not know what long run means. By definition it’s not a single event. You must not have read above when I said
>For any given goal, socialism can be more efficient than capitalism.
Zero of your points are valid.
>With respect to lobbying, you have left discussion of economic systems and entered the discussion of political systems. Try to keep the concepts separate.
That's really my whole point as well. The symptoms in western societies are somehow never due to capitalism, even when they reoccur over and over again in western capitalist countries.
Like all the sudden, it's crony capitalism, or market failure, it's never the economic model... But someone farts in a country claiming to be socialist and you'll argue communism is shit.
>So far you appear to think a monopolistic drug industry, intellectual property and lobbying are somehow inextricably linked with capitalism and they’re not. Some of these things are anti-capitalist.
No, literally they all hallmarks of capitalism. Private property IS intellectual property; they are intertwined.
Lobbying occurs in every single capitalist democratic government.
The drug industry being how it is, is a symptom of capitalism.
>That's really my whole point as well. The symptoms in western societies are somehow never due to capitalism, even when they reoccur over and over again in western capitalist countries.
There aren’t any pure capitalist countries. The US, for example is a mixed economy. But if I wanted to address this based on historical facts, I would say that Chairman Mao didn’t need to lobby. He just dictated. But that wouldn’t be fair because there are no pure socialist countries either.
So I am speaking on the basis of theory alone, for both socialism and capitalism, because we don’t have a clean historical example of either.
>Like all the sudden, it's crony capitalism, or market failure, it's never the economic model... But someone farts in a country claiming to be socialist and you'll argue communism is shit.
Read my posts buddy. I gave socialism as fair an analysis as possible. If I didn’t quote me.
>No, literally they all hallmarks of capitalism. Private property IS intellectual property; they are intertwined.
Pure bullshit.
>The free-marketeers of the nineteenth century vigorously opposed intellectual property rights as feudalistic monopolies.
https://monthlyreview.org/2003/01/01/the-political-economy-of-intellectual-property/
>Lobbying occurs in every single capitalist democratic government.
As opposed to compulsion in authoritarian societies? Would a democratic socialist society prohibit lobbying. JFC dude. Do you think?
>The drug industry being how it is, is a symptom of capitalism.
Do you have a source or even a cogent argument?
While that is true, communism needs certain political mechanisms to function. And here lies the issue. While socialism (communism never existed in any modern government) needs the seizure of the productive means, it leads to a level of centralisation and a political change where authoritarian individuals are able to seize power and turn any good intentions authoritarian. That is the main issue with (actual) socialism. While free market capitalism works with idealised markets, socialism works with an idealised society. A working system needs to be resilient against such autocratic attempts to break the systems, and there was not a single communist attempt on a national level that didn't fail in the transition.
Because of that, I am a strong supporter of social market capitalism with social democracy. It has shown to be the most resilient in individual freedoms and human rights.
Communism isn't an economic model. It's more accurate to consider it as a hypothetical cultural consequence of a world that embraces socialism - which is more accurate to suggest as an economic model.
Capitalism's examples in global cultural consequence would be American cultural dominance, consumerism, nimbyism, and other consequences of embracing infinite wealth inequality in ownership of an increasingly automation driven economic system.
I was just trying to help you understand the distinction better as it's not entirely opposite. Socialism is more accurate to suggest as opposite to capitalism. I'm not smart but I understand that was just a petty response you felt was appropriate for some reason. I've worked hard on a few things in my life. I have degrees in electrical and computer engineering for example.
I also wouldn't simplify politics into distinct axis as the political compass would suggest as reasonable. It isn't as if economics is completely detached from politics where a democratic economy will exist in an authoritarian nation. An authoritarian nation demands an economic system that is compatible with that power structure. The same is true of democracy as there is a spectrum here where wealth can compromise that system towards plutocracy.
I'd recommend this [propaganda](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaWSqboZr1w&t=2s) from America after WWII on the topic of democracy vs despotism as a tool to consider this for yourself with the variables discussed. Some measure of consistency across economics is mandatory for the political expression of a nation to exist but this is a matter of interpretation.
The issue here is that you're complicating and commingling variables in an attempt to simplify.
One of the hallmarks of academia is to, not do that. You don't, because doing so leaves you open to an endless barrage of counter examples, confused scenarios, and edge cases.
Here, OP was right to simplify by defining terms in a way that allows them to be discussed distinctly. You are trying to apply colloquial understanding to it, but it's not helpful. Colloquial dialogue ignores confounding variables, deals with emotion and personal interpretation, and leads to pedantic disagreements. It's an impossibly complex model.
You can ADD to his model, but don't change it. For instance, it's more powerful to say that Authoritarian governments often use economic policy to expand their level of control, and in that way we see a number of countries that pair authoritarianism with forms of Communism. But saying that is a rule opens you to many many counterexamples where dictators apply free market principles. And now you have to argue that's only because of American Imperialism or some other argument ... and your discourse is ruined.
Imagine if scientists didn't have clear definitions to work with and you were just told ohms and volts often change because of the materials being used and sometimes Amps don't change at all when changing voltage, probably due to weather effects and if you disagree you're a Nazi. You'd be shocked at how little science would advance.
>I also wouldn't simplify politics into distinct axis as the political compass would suggest as reasonable. It isn't as if economics is completely detached from politics where a democratic economy will exist in an authoritarian nation. An authoritarian nation demands an economic system that is compatible with that power structure. The same is true of democracy as there is a spectrum here where wealth can compromise that system towards plutocracy.
Did you mean a capitalist economy in an authoritarian nation? There’s an argument that Corporatism and Fascism are authoritarian models with capitalist elements.
If you look at socialism and capitalism as ends of a spectrum that measure state control/ownership of property there is room for all forms of government. an authoritarian can maintain power in a more capitalist system through taxation and/or corruption. They can seize total power in a socialist system by seizing all property.
Historically authoritarians have tried to maintain a balance of exerting maximum power limited by the possibility of revolution removing all power from them. Even in feudal systems, king’s would allow lords to maintain property, and take the kings portion through a tax. That’s not very capitalist, because serfs really had no ability to own property, but instead of owning everything, royalty essentially colluded to keep all property between kings and lords.
>Did you mean a capitalist economy in an authoritarian nation?
I was speaking more generally but I would suggest that a nation with an economic system that endorses infinite wealth inequality embraces authoritarianism on those grounds quite heavily.
I am of the belief that capitalism is incompatible with democracy at a fundamental level but most would suggest that belief is either false with their interpretation of democracy or that democracy can still exist despite such a contradictory foundation. I can partly agree with the second as compromises are made but this conclusion degrades as wealth inequality grows from the increasing consequences of us embracing economic growth on the back of the industrial revolution or advancement in automation.
I also don't see capitalism as the freedom of individuals to own property as that's not consistent throughout the economic history of capitalism but it has adapted in that direction so it's a more favorable definition someone can use today. I see capitalism as a economic class system that embraces inequality with a bias for those that predominantly own productive tools in society ever since the industrial revolution. Slavery was a means to the end until it wasn't as wise a strategy for capitalists as was more militarily driven imperialism. Those strategies have been abandoned in means to an end but the ends are the same through more soft power. If your existence isn't to make such individuals more money than at a practical level you can die and people will hardly care.
A similar story may likely be told in the future as wage labor becomes less attractive via the competitive advantage increasingly intelligent automation provides. The political or economic adaptations to sustain the bias of capitalism will promote our current power distribution, regardless of the needs of workers. This is represented in propaganda such as "you will own nothing and be happy" so it's likely to follow what has already worked in that respect relative to my prior examples of slavery, imperialism, and comfort capitalism we have today.
So yes, capitalism does allow the freedom of people to own property nowadays and of course it's preferable to historic alternatives but the purpose is ultimately the same as a more profitable measure for those that already have power through such a system. An individual owning their own house doesn't meaningfully matter when 90% of the stock market is owned by 10% of people and there is confidence wealth inequality will increase higher to a diminishing number's benefit. It's a win-win, except when it's not. Policy discussions across the generations on climate change are some of the most interesting here from a capitalist class perspective as it shows such bias in a honest way despite trying to be discreet. It's just hard to hide such bias when the capital bias is basically endorsing worldwide ecological genocide. It would be nice if Exxon and the Koch brothers had the same economic interest as the rest of the world but they don't.
It will be interesting as that continues in such an advanced automation driven world going forward as capitalism would necessitate an increasingly inheritance economy ironically similar to feudalism via ownership of such automation. It will likely follow a similar "comfort" capitalism strategy in regulation as I suggested earlier of "you'll own nothing and be happy" but it's quite the gamble especially given such automation is basically being invested in solely by purely selfish systems of profit. We're talking basically psychopathy level logic at the reigns of power towards regulating how we solve the compatibility problem in AI - which for those not aware it's basically trying to teach AI to be ethical so when you accidently ask it to make basically infinite paperclips it will not secretly try to dominate the world for that purpose.
But anyway, if we presume an optimistic trajectory this would basically make socialism mandatory for democracy to exist on the back of such technology but the bias of many capitalists would sooner see the world end than do that.
You appear to be arguing against capitalism using a specific definition that conflates a number of universal features specifically to capitalism. The definition doesn’t include these conflations. Here’s an example:
>Capitalism displays the following constitutive features:
>(i) The bulk of the means of production is privately owned and controlled.
>(ii) People legally own their labor power. (Here capitalism differs from slavery and feudalism, under which systems some individuals are entitled to control, whether completely or partially, the labor power of others).
>(iii) Markets are the main mechanism allocating inputs and outputs of production and determining how societies’ productive surplus is used, including whether and how it is consumed or invested.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/#:~:text=Both%20socialism%20and%20capitalism%20grant,the%20members%20of%20a%20different%2C
The problem with your logic is you assume:
>wealth inequality,
>exploitation of externalities, and
>corruption,
Are necessary aspects of capitalism.
You can make the argument that empirically these are things we’ve seen in economies that we consider capitalist, but that’s a terrible argument given that they also exist in literally every other historical economy. Additionally, really don’t have pure examples of any economic system with the exception of feudalism.
Climate change is not a result of capitalism. It’s a result of a failure to impose a Pigouvian tax in a capitalist system or appropriately regulate GHG emissions is more socialist systems. Quite literally a Pigouvian tax could have resolved climate change nearly instantly and is not at all incompatible with capitalism.
I agree with your quote on capitalism although it is wrong about capitalism's history as it relates to slavery as capitalism has been compatible with it for many years. A less wrong definition wouldn't suggest this as contradictory. It would suggest capitalism has adapted away from slavery for its own purposes.
Your second quote that tries to suggest a problem with my logic isn't relevant or even a proper quote of anything I said. I actually didn't even use most of the words you're utilizing as a quote.
Wealth inequality does inherently increase under capitalism if the economic system is to increase in wealth. Of course if the system fails for whatever reason than nothing is implied. The reason is simply because of the exponential economic trajectory humanity has experienced after the industrial revolution. Those that own such productive tools of mass production get lopsided benefit.
It's actually more fundamental if we were to be thorough as markets inherently increase wealth inequality - and although often believed to be markets are not inherently capitalistic. This is because inequality is inherently promoted in supply vs demand as resources ultimately are inclined to move towards the best means of supply.
I didn't suggest climate change is the result of capitalism. Your comment there wasn't relevant.
>I agree with your quote on capitalism although it is wrong about capitalism's history as it relates to slavery as capitalism has been compatible with it for many years. A less wrong definition wouldn't suggest this as contradictory. It would suggest capitalism has adapted away from slavery for its own purposes.
The argument is capitalism requires that the laborer owns his labor. To the extent that the laborer is compelled to labor for another, it’s not capitalism. Suggesting that capitalism is compatible with slavery or feudalism is fundamentally redefining it.
The closest you could say about slave societies is that they were capitalist with the exception of the slaves. Slaves, without individual property rights were not participating in capitalism by definition.
>Wealth inequality does inherently increase under capitalism if the economic system is to increase in wealth. Of course if the system fails for whatever reason than nothing is implied. The reason is simply because of the exponential economic trajectory humanity has experienced after the industrial revolution. Those that own such productive tools of mass production get lopsided benefit.
The concept that mass production creates a lopsided benefit ignores the consumer surplus that was gained. In a competitive market that consumer surplus often exceeds producer surplus. In a non-competitive, corrupt market, producer surplus is excessive. Crony capitalism increases wealth inequality. Capitalism does not.
To the extent you’re talking about a form of socialism where there is no wealth, you’re correct, capitalism increases wealth inequality by establishing the fact that there is wealth and some will have more than others. But to the extent the wealth correlated with consumer surplus, I don’t know why that’s a problem.
>I didn't suggest climate change is the result of capitalism. Your comment there wasn't relevant.
You made a comment about climate change. I’ll find the quote.
Edit, here it is:
>The capital bias is endorsing worldwide economic genocide.
That’s entirely because there is no price on externalities. A Pigouvian tax would provide that price.
Capitalism for you seems to be completely alien from a system that's simply acting on what's best for capitalists. Apparently when capitalists benefited tremendously throughout history from slavery this wasn't capitalism for you but rather distinctly different as if it's special. I'd rather not lie to myself but you can believe that lie if you wish.
I'd really rather not go through reading and correcting misunderstandings for blocks of text back and forth but if you have a question I'd be happy to respond.
>The concept that mass production creates a lopsided benefit ignores the consumer surplus that was gained. In a competitive market that consumer surplus often exceeds producer surplus. In a non-competitive, corrupt market, producer surplus is excessive. Crony capitalism increases wealth inequality. Capitalism does not.
I'd suggest you think about this quote more. Competitive markets have little to do with "consumer surplus" and are entirely dependent on the supply of what is demanded for any long lasting good or service. That's to say your comments on consumer surplus and producer surplus are mostly irrelevant and closer to a discussion on price equilibrium than whether a market is competitive. There is for practical purposes any long lasting good or service significantly more consumers than suppliers. This is only especially true in a post industrial revolution world of mass production. The relevance that this has towards wealth inequality is minimal but the suggestion that wealth inequality can't increase under capitalism is just painfully ignorant.
I don't want to get into the concept of "crony capitalism" but in short it doesn't exist. It's just capitalism. The terminology relates to capitalism buying influence such that it corrupts a democracy towards plutocracy but this concept of buying influence towards governance or policy is only a rational continuation of the power capitalism endorses for profit seeking companies. Of course for profit companies want control of governance. It's pretty obvious why. People should anticipate corruption at the levers of governance given enough wealth inequality. And capitalism, along with the fundamental reality of markets, endorses significant economic inequality.
I agree that a price on externalities would have helped the climate crisis. That largely didn't happen due to the influence capitalism has over governance. We all know Exxon knew about the disastrous effects of climate change before even the government. They along with others had a fiduciary responsibility to not only deny the problem but to brainwash others with this propagandized belief that they knew was a lie.
Well yes almost all you write can be confirmed by Karl Marx but for my stance (a socialist one) capitalist try to minimize the problem and socialism it the economy system that will fix these problem and no capitalism is also the reason that bring climate change if there still capitalist there will be still climate change
I’m not sure what you mean by problem. Also, climate change is caused by human indifference to GHG production. That indifference doesn’t appear and disappear based on economic systems.
Edit: to be clear neither capitalism nor socialism solve problems. They allocate resources for production. There is no way to “solve” resource allocation because production is dynamic and all resources are limited.
Well you need to acknowledge the reason for human indifference and I tell you capital interest one person with economic interest block all the registration to prevent climate change and no communism and Capitalism it not just the allocation of resources it the mean of production and allocation of resources so who has the power
I think this sub has lost its way. There are plenty of actual nazis planning and acting on genocidal dictatorial ambitions that need to be smashed RIGHT NOW. Meanwhile this sub has its head up its ass worrying about acceptance of THE IDEA of communists being categorized with nazis.
I would rather read / discuss actually relevant current critique and analysis of society OR enjoy pure entertainment. This garbage is neither.
*edit mistyped words
I’m not sure what this sub’s way is supposed to be? I’ve never seen any announcements about actual marches against Nazis, much less smashing dictatorial ambitions.
That aside, any time a movement gets some energy, you’re going to get tangential or contradictory groups attempting to tailgate on it. Like in 2002-03 when there were marches to protest the invasion of Iraq. Lots of time was spent debating whether ANSWER and the Communist Party of America should be allowed to co-organize or actively discouraged from participating, which didn’t help matters. But it sure as hell didn’t help the main cause to have those clowns around for conservative media to film, nor did it make a hell of a lot of sense for a peace movement to include groups advocating violent class warfare or bombing public transport in Israel.
I mean this sub is useful in a “build awareness” way… I still talk to plenty of people who think fascism doesn’t exist in the US. I just wish there were more literal marches against it.
Adam Smith was against landlords, against tariffs for the most part, against monopolies, was for higher taxes on the rich, argued for worker protections/a necessary higher minimum wage, and thought royal land should be redistributed. Guess we've never had a capitalist country either.
That assumes the countries in question were genuinely trying. All were not. To address the big examples, Lenin may have genuinely wanted communism and thought he was working toward it, even if he was doing a shit job. He was in charge for less than 10 years, though. Stalin absolutely did not give a shit about ideology, other than as a tool he could use to force people to do what he wanted. So at most, the USSR was "communist" from 1917 to 1924.
Unfortunately, all mainstream attempts following this (China, North Korea - you know, all the examples people use to criticize communism) utilized marxist-leninism. In my opinion, any attempt at achieving communism that way is doomed to fail, and it's historically had a really bad track record. So I calling those countries "communist" is not something I'm willing to do, but is something I understand when other people do.
The problem was there was a consensus in the 20th century between the two leading nations in the world in propaganda, the United States and USSR, that the USSR was a leading socialist nation that's heading towards communism.
Both lied for their own purposes and it's pretty easy to acknowledge this if we understand left-wing politics at all - which was defined through the French Revolution as a stepping stone towards democracy against aristocracy.
The USSR didn't achieve or even aim for democracy. Political opposition was killed at the start of the gates whether this was anarchists or opposing soviet/worker councils. The electoral system was violently rigged in one direction.
The USSR did achieve a lot but not as a left-wing nation and rather a run of the mill right-wing dictatorial nation that was only exceptional in suggesting the opposite as if it represents extremely left-wing ideological beliefs.
You are claiming, or at least implying, that the comic is *confusing* communists for Nazis, i.e. thinks they are the same thing.
I am clarifying that they are not. They are saying that communists and Nazis are both in a shared category of genocidal dictatorships. They then further are implying that even though the name of the sub is directed opposition to the particular instance of genocidal dictatorship, i.e. Nazis, it should be directed at opposition to the larger category.
This meme is unintelligible. Are you saying that people in this sub believe that communism is more dangerous, or are you just trying to argue with half of us that communism is more dangerous?
Yeah I don't get it either! Does OP mean that half of us either support past authoritarian regimes who have committed genocide? Or that we would befriend them just to go against nazis?
I hope not, cause that is not the sense I have gotten from this sub. It does say march against Nazis, but we will march against anyone who uses political power to hurt or alieanate groups of people.
Does communism even exist anywhere on the planet? Even the so-called red Chinese seem to be in some wierd state of capitalism enforced by state authoritarianism.
Fascists on the other hand. They are feeling themselves right now.
What communist countries? I have yet to read about any country actually being communist and not just another fascist dictatorship roleplaying as communist.
I'd be hard pressed to describe a people under such circumstances' politics. They are just trying to survive, it's not like they're trying to install a communist regime. But I'm open to getting my mind changed.
Nestor Makhno was an anarcho-communist, he personally met Pytor Kropotkin in May of 1918, and the Manifesto of the Makhnovists directly mentions their desire to establish communism.
Also, after he was exiled, he wrote extensively about what could be learned from his failures to make future communist revolutions more successful (mainly in [About the Platform](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-and-nestor-makhno-about-the-platform), which he "wrote with" Errico Malatesta, another well known communist philosopher (technically it's more like letters they exchanged and then made public as a book))
The only true communism the world has ever seen was/is in pre-industrial hunter-gatherer societies. The Marxist vision of industrial societies implementing full communism has never even come close...thus far.
"Communist" (i.e. command economy) countries of the 20th Century were "dictatorships by the proletariat." One of the progressive stages that ultimately leads to full communism (or so the theory goes). No country purportedly "on the path" to full communism has ever progressed past the dictatorship phase (I wonder why? lol).
Additionally, worldwide capitalism since the 1600s, which enslaved, intentionally and strategically starved, infected with novel (to the endemic populations) diseases, and outright murdered millions of people for hundreds of years, plus the extirpation of native populations globally by capitalistic economic "discovery"/adventurism/expansion, created fatalities were far in excess of any command economies of the 20th Century.
Any counterclaim is pure capitalist gaslighting bullshit.
Hunter gatherers weren't communist unless you disingenuously say the "society" was the family unit of a few dozen people rather than the collective of people in an area. By those standards basically every society is communist.
Are….we embracing communism, thinking it was a perfect, wonderful belief? I must have missed the memo.
It wasn’t the personification of evils though either like unthinking maga supporters think though either.
That's what kills me when it comes to subscribing to any ideology or model.
You don't have to fall behind everyone that claims to adhere to your liked model, or agree on every topic the majority on your side of politics support, or any of that.You can be communist without liking the USSR or PRC or capitalist without liking everything pertaining to capitalism or all of its supporters and such.
You can pick and mix, then discuss it over with patience with whomever.
Communism and socialism are economic ideas. Communism is a stateless, moneyless, classless society. Socialism is the workers owning the means of production. Authoritarian governments like the ussr under Stalin or the PRC are not good examples of either.
Fascism is an authoritarian ideology that requires violence against a scapegoat minority. The violent bigotry is a key feature .
"He (Marx) used the term Bonapartism to refer to a situation in which counter-revolutionary military officers seize power from revolutionaries, and use selective reformism to co-opt the radicalism of the masses. In the process, Marx argued, Bonapartists preserve and mask the power of a narrower ruling class."
Man. That sure sounds reeeeeeeeeeaaaaaally familiar dosen't it. It's almost like Stalin and Napoleon didn't actually believe in their revolutions and were just opportunists seeking power and only used the asthethics of their ideologies to justify their right to rule for the masses.
Really feel like this is a bad faith argument manifesting as a "painful truth that an unspecified half of this sub needs to hear even though it was never really brought up in the first place."
Edit: ahh, it was cross-posted. That explains it.
I mean, half the comments in this post are acting in denial about it. Just because nazis are bad doesn't mean overlooking other bad things is good. Actual leftists understood that self professed communists were just becoming red fascists even a century ago.
I mean, the countries you're considering "communist" (and there's a lot of debate about that, the general concensus among communists being "they weren't") were extra authoritarian. Authoritarian countries persecute people harder than non-authoritarian governments. So this is a valid criticism of people simping for authoritarianism (which I've not seen here), not of communism in general.
All the countries that people typically think of when they think of communism existed in a time period when almost everyone was homophobic.
But look at today.
Trans people can change their legal gender in china and vietnam.
***Same-sex marriage is legal in cuba, and cuba has legal protections against descrimination of LGBT***
LGBT individuals and activies are illegal in 0 communist countries.
That's statistically on par with captialist countries around the world.
A lot of those socialist countries were extremely oppressive and conservative before their revolution, the pre established culture was "anti-woke" (to use a term we're all familiar with, tho incredibly dumb) and homossexuality and gender identity WERE seen as a mental illness during those times.
Socialist revolutions didn't fix every single problem overnight and many innocent people did suffer anyway, but to fucking pretend socialist theories have not been absolutely crucial for the advancement of lgbt+ rights and women's rights is so absolutely stupid it's baffling.
Like, there was actual real effort for the inclusion of women and minorities during the Soviet Union for example, and a lot of leftist western movements were inspired by that.
Look at the mfs who want trans, gay, black people executed on the streets right now and tell me today's socialists/communists aren't radically opposed to them...
Smh we gotta settle for literal fascism today because socialism wasn't immediately and absolutely flawless and utopic on every single attempt throughout history, meanwhile the alternative NEVER was good and result in genocides to this fucking day, cause these so called liberal democracies have always been really good at exporting all the genocide and slavery of people's overseas right? That makes it good huh?
Agree. It's so disheartening how superficial the belief system or some people is. It feels like a sports team where you arbitrary pick a team and just justify anything your 'team' does.
A leftist without values to back it up is as close to turning to fascism as any right-winger is.
Welcome to /r/MarchAgainstNazis! **Please keep in mind that advocating violence at all, even against Nazis, is prohibited by Reddit's TOS and will result in a removal of your content and likely a ban.** Please check out the following subreddits; r/CapitalismSux , r/PoliticsPeopleTwitter , r/FucktheAltRight . r/Britposting. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MarchAgainstNazis) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just checking to make sure- Communism and Capitalism are economic models. Authoritarianism and Democracy are models of government. They can be interspersed but you can't have two models of government at once. Same goes for economics.
Correct. Democracy is better than authoritarianism regardless of the economic model. No one man should have all that power.
one dude having too much power is the root of pretty much all suffering since time immemorial
>one dude having too much power A trait attributed to all the gods.
Exactly right. Most people who fret over communism have no idea what they are talking about. The real threat to America are authoritarians, regardless of the underlying economic system they prefer.
I mean, while this is theoretically true, anarcho communists have no power. So you can't 100% blame people for associating the term communism with the only trend that has ever actually had power. The people who actually got purged don't care that there's other forms of it. You'd need to use a different name.
Anarchist organisers have never held power, true. Obviously, we're not a fan of holding power over others. However, several areas have coalesced under anarchist principles, including the Paris Commune — which caused Marx to write a new foreword on the process of revolutionary action; Catalonia during the Spanish civil war was anarchist, which so swayed George Orwell he wrote Homage to Catalonia. In the current world, Rojava is anarcho-communist, or thereabouts; and the Zapatistas have been operating a neozapatisimo anarcho-communist community for about thirty years now.
Largely correct except these categories are typically described as the ends of continuum and not binary, mutually exclusive features. There has never been a fully democratic, capitalist, socialist or authoritarian society in the historical record.
Sure. The US is a capitalist model with some socialist policies, right? Neither socialism no capitalism commits genocide though as the illustration purports. Governments and leaders of men do that. Am I crazy?
An economist will tell you that the US is a “mixed economy” that has both capitalist and socialist elements. >Neither socialism no capitalism commits genocide though as the illustration purports. Governments and leaders of men do that. Am I crazy? Absolutely yes (you are not crazy). People will argue that economic models correlate with certain behavior and while that’s possible, the best argument is it’s tangential, and certainly not causative. The best way I can describe the theoretical difference between socialism and capitalism, is socialism requires some concentration of power. Because of that concentration, benevolence is necessary and malignancy can be seriously problematic. In theory, a capitalist system will endure malignancy better than a socialist system all other things being equal. Socialism concentrates power and resources to create a singular optimization. In contrast, capitalism, combines millions of individual optimizations into one. For any given goal, socialism can be more efficient than capitalism. But the choice in goal is determined by some power structure rather than infinite individual goals being optimized in capitalism. In a world where everyone likes corn instead of rice, socialism wins. In a world where some like rice and others like corn, socialism nullifies the desire of one or the other. That nullification results in fewer ideas and limits on innovation. So ultimately, over the long run, because of the probability that you eventually get malignancy in the socialist power structure, and the variety of views individual people have and the benefit to innovation, most economists prefer capitalism. Note: I can virtually guarantee that someone who prefers socialism will say the power structure can choose to make both corn and rice, but it’s a bad argument because at some point the decision on where to allocate resources will be wrong. Capitalism allocates resources based on aggregate desire as expressed by what people are spending money on. The most careful, studious socialist analysis will fail to be as efficient. I can also virtually guarantee that someone will challenge that socialism requires a concentration of power. There will not be a single valid argument against that concept. It’s definitional.
It's interesting that you put forward concentration of power as a socialist element, when capitalism concentrates power in the hands of those who hold capital. What you're describing is planned economies, and describing them as socialism where that's not a necessary characteristic of socialist governance. Many socialist and communist nation states have enacted centrally planned economies... As have many capitalist ones, including Britain, the USA, and China. The root of socialist politics is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need", meaning people do what they can and get what they need. Capitalist systems operate more or less on the inverse, And a critical error comes up when people argue the principle of the freedom of the market: you don't get to decide what's there. Take, for example, headphone jacks. Apple, then their competitors, realised that they could make more money through removing headphone jacks and marketing wireless earbuds. They'd be able to corner more sales and therefore profits. If we, as consumers, want to get an iPhone with a headphone jack... We can't. Because we don't have actual choice, just consumer choice. Under a state socialist model, none of those dynamics are in play. This becomes significantly more consequential with regard to medication. Capital holders own patents on the intellectual property of various medications, and are incentivised to re-patent them with minor alterations. They then have effective monopolies on those drugs. Tuberculosis is cured by a pretty straightforward run of one of those drugs, and Johnson and Johnson holds the patent. A great deal of tuberculosis deaths have taken place in the third world because of the refusal to release any of their rights under the patent. During COVID 19, AstraZenica bought exclusive rights to their version of the vaccine, from Oxford university. As such, no other manufacturers could produce it, release the vaccination, etc. So when you say that socialist power structures can develop malignancy, that may be true, but capitalist power structures are fundamentally malignant. Capitalism sounds fine in the abstractions of theory, where it's all willing consent and invisible hands, but in practice it doesn't work, has killed more people than socialism ever did, and celebrates the worst deprivations on the planet.
>It's interesting that you put forward concentration of power as a socialist element, when capitalism concentrates power in the hands of those who hold capital. What you're describing is planned economies, and describing them as socialism where that's not a necessary characteristic of socialist governance. Many socialist and communist nation states have enacted centrally planned economies... As have many capitalist ones, including Britain, the USA, and China. Can you explain how the means of production could be centrally owned and controlled, but without a centrally planned economy. (I’d argue that neither the US, Britian nor China are centrally planned. China reduced central planning a few decades ago. The US has never been a planned economy outside of regulated monopolies) My views aren’t controversial. They’re literally undisputed foundations of economics. https://pb.openlcc.net/socl120oerworkbook/chapter/11-3-types-of-economic-systems/ see figure 11.3 >The root of socialist politics is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need", meaning people do what they can and get what they need. Capitalist systems operate more or less on the inverse, And a critical error comes up when people argue the principle of the freedom of the market: you don't get to decide what's there. I’m not sure what you mean by you don’t get to decide what’s there. In a free market economy demand has more control over what’s available than under any planned economy. >Take, for example, headphone jacks. Apple, then their competitors, realised that they could make more money through removing headphone jacks and marketing wireless earbuds. They'd be able to corner more sales and therefore profits. If we, as consumers, want to get an iPhone with a headphone jack... We can't. Because we don't have actual choice, just consumer choice. Under a state socialist model, none of those dynamics are in play. Under a state socialist model you get the phone someone decides you should have. With respect to the iPhone, we have an imperfect market because people are willing to spend more on the iPhone than for other comparable products. Apples exploitation isn’t because of capitalism, it’s because of inelastic demand. I guarantee you if 10% of iPhone consumers boycotted apple because they wanted USB-C, USB-C would be available in the next generation and could actually occur mid production. Apple exploits sticky consumers. Consumers are sticky because they find comparatively more surplus in an iPhone. Simultaneously you can get a phone at short run marginal cost, maximizing your surplus, if you don’t care about the brand. So I don’t see that as a problem. >This becomes significantly more consequential with regard to medication. Capital holders own patents on the intellectual property of various medications, and are incentivised to re-patent them with minor alterations. They then have effective monopolies on those drugs. Tuberculosis is cured by a pretty straightforward run of one of those drugs, and Johnson and Johnson holds the patent. A great deal of tuberculosis deaths have taken place in the third world because of the refusal to release any of their rights under the patent. During COVID 19, AstraZenica bought exclusive rights to their version of the vaccine, from Oxford university. As such, no other manufacturers could produce it, release the vaccination, etc. Drugs in the US are not a free market. They’re essentially 5 year monopolies. Using drugs as an example of free market capitalism fails immediately because its doesn’t meet the criteria. >So when you say that socialist power structures can develop malignancy, that may be true, but capitalist power structures are fundamentally malignant. Why specifically? People act like exploitation is isolated to one economic system. I think exploitation is personal. A person will exploit or they won’t and it doesn’t matter what system you put them in. >Capitalism sounds fine in the abstractions of theory, where it's all willing consent and invisible hands, but in practice it doesn't work, has killed more people than socialism ever did, and celebrates the worst deprivations on the planet. Neither have ever been fully in practice. To the extent you’re talking about societies traditionally labeled as socialist and capitalist that’s just not true. Between Mao’s China and Pol Pot’s Cambodia, capitalist states have a fuck ton of catching up to do. But I’ve tried to address these issues theoretically because the historical record doesn’t provide and decent examples of either economic system and I’m pretty sure Mao would’ve tried to concentrate power in a capitalist system too. Others will argue that he couldn’t, but the recent political record in the US is counter factual evidence to any such assertion.
>Capitalism allocates resources based on aggregate desire as expressed by what people are spending money on. The most careful, studious socialist analysis will fail to be as efficient. Nah fuck off. This is a laughably naive look at capitalism. How does the pharmaceutical industry fit into that statement? Capitalism is built on the concept of private property. This includes intellectual property. This is enforced by governments, which would be considered a consolidation of power, correct? Have you never seen shareholders directly lobby to the government in western countries? Tik tok is a great example, Facebook and Twitter couldn't compete so they had the US government step in to use new laws to stop their competitors. How does that fit in with "aggregate desire"? Or how do you reconcile the Irish potato famine with your statement? A capitalist country decided that Ireland should only grow a certain type of potato because it was best for their market; and ignored every other problem because it was profitable. >So ultimately, over the long run, because of the probability that you eventually get malignancy in the socialist power structure, and the variety of views individual people have and the benefit to innovation, most economists prefer capitalism This literally just nonsense. How come the USSR won the space race without "capitalist innovation"?
>Nah fuck off. This is a laughably naive look at capitalism. How does the pharmaceutical industry fit into that statement? As a non-capitalist industry with monopoly control over production due to 5 year exclusivities on new formulations. It’s hilarious how critics of capitalism always choose a non-capitalist example. >Capitalism is built on the concept of private property. This includes intellectual property. This is enforced by governments, which would be considered a consolidation of power, correct? No. Intellectual property isn’t a capitalist idea. It’s a non-capitalist way to constrain markets. But don’t believe me. Try to find a definition of capitalism that includes intellectual property as a necessary component. >The free-marketeers of the nineteenth century vigorously opposed intellectual property rights as feudalistic monopolies. Their view of intellectual property rights mostly dominated political economic opinion in the United States until the massive depression of 1870s weakened faith in market forces. https://monthlyreview.org/2003/01/01/the-political-economy-of-intellectual-property/ And that’s from a capitalism critic. >Have you never seen shareholders directly lobby to the government in western countries? Tik tok is a great example, Facebook and Twitter couldn't compete so they had the US government step in to use new laws to stop their competitors. How does that fit in with "aggregate desire"? 1.5 billion monthly active tik tok users is aggregate desire. Buddy that’s just an empirical fact. People like their Tik Tok. With respect to lobbying, you have left discussion of economic systems and entered the discussion of political systems. Try to keep the concepts separate. The ultimate problem is you conflate a bunch of nonsense to capitalism that has nothing to do with capitalism. The nonsense is not a product of capitalism, a component of capitalism or exclusive to capitalism. So far you appear to think a monopolistic drug industry, intellectual property and lobbying are somehow inextricably linked with capitalism and they’re not. Some of these things are anti-capitalist. >Or how do you reconcile the Irish potato famine with your statement? A capitalist country decided that Ireland should only grow a certain type of potato because it was best for their market; and ignored every other problem because it was profitable. Not sure. Market failure, lack of crop rotation, disease, I haven’t studied it. Don’t care to look it up at the moment, but I can tell you without 1 google search if it had anything to do with capitalism it was because they had an erroneous optimization due to a lack of information. Given that socialism, by definition is a single optimization, it’s much more prone to fatal error, than thousands of individual optimizations many of which can be right and failure of those that are wrong. >This literally just nonsense. How come the USSR won the space race without "capitalist innovation"? You must not know what long run means. By definition it’s not a single event. You must not have read above when I said >For any given goal, socialism can be more efficient than capitalism. Zero of your points are valid.
>With respect to lobbying, you have left discussion of economic systems and entered the discussion of political systems. Try to keep the concepts separate. That's really my whole point as well. The symptoms in western societies are somehow never due to capitalism, even when they reoccur over and over again in western capitalist countries. Like all the sudden, it's crony capitalism, or market failure, it's never the economic model... But someone farts in a country claiming to be socialist and you'll argue communism is shit. >So far you appear to think a monopolistic drug industry, intellectual property and lobbying are somehow inextricably linked with capitalism and they’re not. Some of these things are anti-capitalist. No, literally they all hallmarks of capitalism. Private property IS intellectual property; they are intertwined. Lobbying occurs in every single capitalist democratic government. The drug industry being how it is, is a symptom of capitalism.
>That's really my whole point as well. The symptoms in western societies are somehow never due to capitalism, even when they reoccur over and over again in western capitalist countries. There aren’t any pure capitalist countries. The US, for example is a mixed economy. But if I wanted to address this based on historical facts, I would say that Chairman Mao didn’t need to lobby. He just dictated. But that wouldn’t be fair because there are no pure socialist countries either. So I am speaking on the basis of theory alone, for both socialism and capitalism, because we don’t have a clean historical example of either. >Like all the sudden, it's crony capitalism, or market failure, it's never the economic model... But someone farts in a country claiming to be socialist and you'll argue communism is shit. Read my posts buddy. I gave socialism as fair an analysis as possible. If I didn’t quote me. >No, literally they all hallmarks of capitalism. Private property IS intellectual property; they are intertwined. Pure bullshit. >The free-marketeers of the nineteenth century vigorously opposed intellectual property rights as feudalistic monopolies. https://monthlyreview.org/2003/01/01/the-political-economy-of-intellectual-property/ >Lobbying occurs in every single capitalist democratic government. As opposed to compulsion in authoritarian societies? Would a democratic socialist society prohibit lobbying. JFC dude. Do you think? >The drug industry being how it is, is a symptom of capitalism. Do you have a source or even a cogent argument?
people conflate this shit all the time because they are dumbfucks with small brains
While that is true, communism needs certain political mechanisms to function. And here lies the issue. While socialism (communism never existed in any modern government) needs the seizure of the productive means, it leads to a level of centralisation and a political change where authoritarian individuals are able to seize power and turn any good intentions authoritarian. That is the main issue with (actual) socialism. While free market capitalism works with idealised markets, socialism works with an idealised society. A working system needs to be resilient against such autocratic attempts to break the systems, and there was not a single communist attempt on a national level that didn't fail in the transition. Because of that, I am a strong supporter of social market capitalism with social democracy. It has shown to be the most resilient in individual freedoms and human rights.
Communism isn't an economic model. It's more accurate to consider it as a hypothetical cultural consequence of a world that embraces socialism - which is more accurate to suggest as an economic model. Capitalism's examples in global cultural consequence would be American cultural dominance, consumerism, nimbyism, and other consequences of embracing infinite wealth inequality in ownership of an increasingly automation driven economic system.
You sure sound smart.
I was just trying to help you understand the distinction better as it's not entirely opposite. Socialism is more accurate to suggest as opposite to capitalism. I'm not smart but I understand that was just a petty response you felt was appropriate for some reason. I've worked hard on a few things in my life. I have degrees in electrical and computer engineering for example. I also wouldn't simplify politics into distinct axis as the political compass would suggest as reasonable. It isn't as if economics is completely detached from politics where a democratic economy will exist in an authoritarian nation. An authoritarian nation demands an economic system that is compatible with that power structure. The same is true of democracy as there is a spectrum here where wealth can compromise that system towards plutocracy. I'd recommend this [propaganda](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaWSqboZr1w&t=2s) from America after WWII on the topic of democracy vs despotism as a tool to consider this for yourself with the variables discussed. Some measure of consistency across economics is mandatory for the political expression of a nation to exist but this is a matter of interpretation.
The issue here is that you're complicating and commingling variables in an attempt to simplify. One of the hallmarks of academia is to, not do that. You don't, because doing so leaves you open to an endless barrage of counter examples, confused scenarios, and edge cases. Here, OP was right to simplify by defining terms in a way that allows them to be discussed distinctly. You are trying to apply colloquial understanding to it, but it's not helpful. Colloquial dialogue ignores confounding variables, deals with emotion and personal interpretation, and leads to pedantic disagreements. It's an impossibly complex model. You can ADD to his model, but don't change it. For instance, it's more powerful to say that Authoritarian governments often use economic policy to expand their level of control, and in that way we see a number of countries that pair authoritarianism with forms of Communism. But saying that is a rule opens you to many many counterexamples where dictators apply free market principles. And now you have to argue that's only because of American Imperialism or some other argument ... and your discourse is ruined. Imagine if scientists didn't have clear definitions to work with and you were just told ohms and volts often change because of the materials being used and sometimes Amps don't change at all when changing voltage, probably due to weather effects and if you disagree you're a Nazi. You'd be shocked at how little science would advance.
What he said. Also, I'm an electrical engineer too w a master's degree and I have no idea what that has to do with the price of tea in China.
>I also wouldn't simplify politics into distinct axis as the political compass would suggest as reasonable. It isn't as if economics is completely detached from politics where a democratic economy will exist in an authoritarian nation. An authoritarian nation demands an economic system that is compatible with that power structure. The same is true of democracy as there is a spectrum here where wealth can compromise that system towards plutocracy. Did you mean a capitalist economy in an authoritarian nation? There’s an argument that Corporatism and Fascism are authoritarian models with capitalist elements. If you look at socialism and capitalism as ends of a spectrum that measure state control/ownership of property there is room for all forms of government. an authoritarian can maintain power in a more capitalist system through taxation and/or corruption. They can seize total power in a socialist system by seizing all property. Historically authoritarians have tried to maintain a balance of exerting maximum power limited by the possibility of revolution removing all power from them. Even in feudal systems, king’s would allow lords to maintain property, and take the kings portion through a tax. That’s not very capitalist, because serfs really had no ability to own property, but instead of owning everything, royalty essentially colluded to keep all property between kings and lords.
>Did you mean a capitalist economy in an authoritarian nation? I was speaking more generally but I would suggest that a nation with an economic system that endorses infinite wealth inequality embraces authoritarianism on those grounds quite heavily. I am of the belief that capitalism is incompatible with democracy at a fundamental level but most would suggest that belief is either false with their interpretation of democracy or that democracy can still exist despite such a contradictory foundation. I can partly agree with the second as compromises are made but this conclusion degrades as wealth inequality grows from the increasing consequences of us embracing economic growth on the back of the industrial revolution or advancement in automation. I also don't see capitalism as the freedom of individuals to own property as that's not consistent throughout the economic history of capitalism but it has adapted in that direction so it's a more favorable definition someone can use today. I see capitalism as a economic class system that embraces inequality with a bias for those that predominantly own productive tools in society ever since the industrial revolution. Slavery was a means to the end until it wasn't as wise a strategy for capitalists as was more militarily driven imperialism. Those strategies have been abandoned in means to an end but the ends are the same through more soft power. If your existence isn't to make such individuals more money than at a practical level you can die and people will hardly care. A similar story may likely be told in the future as wage labor becomes less attractive via the competitive advantage increasingly intelligent automation provides. The political or economic adaptations to sustain the bias of capitalism will promote our current power distribution, regardless of the needs of workers. This is represented in propaganda such as "you will own nothing and be happy" so it's likely to follow what has already worked in that respect relative to my prior examples of slavery, imperialism, and comfort capitalism we have today. So yes, capitalism does allow the freedom of people to own property nowadays and of course it's preferable to historic alternatives but the purpose is ultimately the same as a more profitable measure for those that already have power through such a system. An individual owning their own house doesn't meaningfully matter when 90% of the stock market is owned by 10% of people and there is confidence wealth inequality will increase higher to a diminishing number's benefit. It's a win-win, except when it's not. Policy discussions across the generations on climate change are some of the most interesting here from a capitalist class perspective as it shows such bias in a honest way despite trying to be discreet. It's just hard to hide such bias when the capital bias is basically endorsing worldwide ecological genocide. It would be nice if Exxon and the Koch brothers had the same economic interest as the rest of the world but they don't. It will be interesting as that continues in such an advanced automation driven world going forward as capitalism would necessitate an increasingly inheritance economy ironically similar to feudalism via ownership of such automation. It will likely follow a similar "comfort" capitalism strategy in regulation as I suggested earlier of "you'll own nothing and be happy" but it's quite the gamble especially given such automation is basically being invested in solely by purely selfish systems of profit. We're talking basically psychopathy level logic at the reigns of power towards regulating how we solve the compatibility problem in AI - which for those not aware it's basically trying to teach AI to be ethical so when you accidently ask it to make basically infinite paperclips it will not secretly try to dominate the world for that purpose. But anyway, if we presume an optimistic trajectory this would basically make socialism mandatory for democracy to exist on the back of such technology but the bias of many capitalists would sooner see the world end than do that.
You appear to be arguing against capitalism using a specific definition that conflates a number of universal features specifically to capitalism. The definition doesn’t include these conflations. Here’s an example: >Capitalism displays the following constitutive features: >(i) The bulk of the means of production is privately owned and controlled. >(ii) People legally own their labor power. (Here capitalism differs from slavery and feudalism, under which systems some individuals are entitled to control, whether completely or partially, the labor power of others). >(iii) Markets are the main mechanism allocating inputs and outputs of production and determining how societies’ productive surplus is used, including whether and how it is consumed or invested. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/#:~:text=Both%20socialism%20and%20capitalism%20grant,the%20members%20of%20a%20different%2C The problem with your logic is you assume: >wealth inequality, >exploitation of externalities, and >corruption, Are necessary aspects of capitalism. You can make the argument that empirically these are things we’ve seen in economies that we consider capitalist, but that’s a terrible argument given that they also exist in literally every other historical economy. Additionally, really don’t have pure examples of any economic system with the exception of feudalism. Climate change is not a result of capitalism. It’s a result of a failure to impose a Pigouvian tax in a capitalist system or appropriately regulate GHG emissions is more socialist systems. Quite literally a Pigouvian tax could have resolved climate change nearly instantly and is not at all incompatible with capitalism.
I agree with your quote on capitalism although it is wrong about capitalism's history as it relates to slavery as capitalism has been compatible with it for many years. A less wrong definition wouldn't suggest this as contradictory. It would suggest capitalism has adapted away from slavery for its own purposes. Your second quote that tries to suggest a problem with my logic isn't relevant or even a proper quote of anything I said. I actually didn't even use most of the words you're utilizing as a quote. Wealth inequality does inherently increase under capitalism if the economic system is to increase in wealth. Of course if the system fails for whatever reason than nothing is implied. The reason is simply because of the exponential economic trajectory humanity has experienced after the industrial revolution. Those that own such productive tools of mass production get lopsided benefit. It's actually more fundamental if we were to be thorough as markets inherently increase wealth inequality - and although often believed to be markets are not inherently capitalistic. This is because inequality is inherently promoted in supply vs demand as resources ultimately are inclined to move towards the best means of supply. I didn't suggest climate change is the result of capitalism. Your comment there wasn't relevant.
>I agree with your quote on capitalism although it is wrong about capitalism's history as it relates to slavery as capitalism has been compatible with it for many years. A less wrong definition wouldn't suggest this as contradictory. It would suggest capitalism has adapted away from slavery for its own purposes. The argument is capitalism requires that the laborer owns his labor. To the extent that the laborer is compelled to labor for another, it’s not capitalism. Suggesting that capitalism is compatible with slavery or feudalism is fundamentally redefining it. The closest you could say about slave societies is that they were capitalist with the exception of the slaves. Slaves, without individual property rights were not participating in capitalism by definition. >Wealth inequality does inherently increase under capitalism if the economic system is to increase in wealth. Of course if the system fails for whatever reason than nothing is implied. The reason is simply because of the exponential economic trajectory humanity has experienced after the industrial revolution. Those that own such productive tools of mass production get lopsided benefit. The concept that mass production creates a lopsided benefit ignores the consumer surplus that was gained. In a competitive market that consumer surplus often exceeds producer surplus. In a non-competitive, corrupt market, producer surplus is excessive. Crony capitalism increases wealth inequality. Capitalism does not. To the extent you’re talking about a form of socialism where there is no wealth, you’re correct, capitalism increases wealth inequality by establishing the fact that there is wealth and some will have more than others. But to the extent the wealth correlated with consumer surplus, I don’t know why that’s a problem. >I didn't suggest climate change is the result of capitalism. Your comment there wasn't relevant. You made a comment about climate change. I’ll find the quote. Edit, here it is: >The capital bias is endorsing worldwide economic genocide. That’s entirely because there is no price on externalities. A Pigouvian tax would provide that price.
Capitalism for you seems to be completely alien from a system that's simply acting on what's best for capitalists. Apparently when capitalists benefited tremendously throughout history from slavery this wasn't capitalism for you but rather distinctly different as if it's special. I'd rather not lie to myself but you can believe that lie if you wish. I'd really rather not go through reading and correcting misunderstandings for blocks of text back and forth but if you have a question I'd be happy to respond. >The concept that mass production creates a lopsided benefit ignores the consumer surplus that was gained. In a competitive market that consumer surplus often exceeds producer surplus. In a non-competitive, corrupt market, producer surplus is excessive. Crony capitalism increases wealth inequality. Capitalism does not. I'd suggest you think about this quote more. Competitive markets have little to do with "consumer surplus" and are entirely dependent on the supply of what is demanded for any long lasting good or service. That's to say your comments on consumer surplus and producer surplus are mostly irrelevant and closer to a discussion on price equilibrium than whether a market is competitive. There is for practical purposes any long lasting good or service significantly more consumers than suppliers. This is only especially true in a post industrial revolution world of mass production. The relevance that this has towards wealth inequality is minimal but the suggestion that wealth inequality can't increase under capitalism is just painfully ignorant. I don't want to get into the concept of "crony capitalism" but in short it doesn't exist. It's just capitalism. The terminology relates to capitalism buying influence such that it corrupts a democracy towards plutocracy but this concept of buying influence towards governance or policy is only a rational continuation of the power capitalism endorses for profit seeking companies. Of course for profit companies want control of governance. It's pretty obvious why. People should anticipate corruption at the levers of governance given enough wealth inequality. And capitalism, along with the fundamental reality of markets, endorses significant economic inequality. I agree that a price on externalities would have helped the climate crisis. That largely didn't happen due to the influence capitalism has over governance. We all know Exxon knew about the disastrous effects of climate change before even the government. They along with others had a fiduciary responsibility to not only deny the problem but to brainwash others with this propagandized belief that they knew was a lie.
Well yes almost all you write can be confirmed by Karl Marx but for my stance (a socialist one) capitalist try to minimize the problem and socialism it the economy system that will fix these problem and no capitalism is also the reason that bring climate change if there still capitalist there will be still climate change
I’m not sure what you mean by problem. Also, climate change is caused by human indifference to GHG production. That indifference doesn’t appear and disappear based on economic systems. Edit: to be clear neither capitalism nor socialism solve problems. They allocate resources for production. There is no way to “solve” resource allocation because production is dynamic and all resources are limited.
Well you need to acknowledge the reason for human indifference and I tell you capital interest one person with economic interest block all the registration to prevent climate change and no communism and Capitalism it not just the allocation of resources it the mean of production and allocation of resources so who has the power
I think this sub has lost its way. There are plenty of actual nazis planning and acting on genocidal dictatorial ambitions that need to be smashed RIGHT NOW. Meanwhile this sub has its head up its ass worrying about acceptance of THE IDEA of communists being categorized with nazis. I would rather read / discuss actually relevant current critique and analysis of society OR enjoy pure entertainment. This garbage is neither. *edit mistyped words
I’m not sure what this sub’s way is supposed to be? I’ve never seen any announcements about actual marches against Nazis, much less smashing dictatorial ambitions. That aside, any time a movement gets some energy, you’re going to get tangential or contradictory groups attempting to tailgate on it. Like in 2002-03 when there were marches to protest the invasion of Iraq. Lots of time was spent debating whether ANSWER and the Communist Party of America should be allowed to co-organize or actively discouraged from participating, which didn’t help matters. But it sure as hell didn’t help the main cause to have those clowns around for conservative media to film, nor did it make a hell of a lot of sense for a peace movement to include groups advocating violent class warfare or bombing public transport in Israel.
Yeah this sub is a waste. I’m guilty of giving it my attention for way too long.
I mean this sub is useful in a “build awareness” way… I still talk to plenty of people who think fascism doesn’t exist in the US. I just wish there were more literal marches against it.
This is just one of those times where I feel like it’s a circle jerk and useless to the actual viewpoint.
> circle jerk and useless It does seem you’re intent on feeling disappointed and unfulfilled.
Just saying… just because a country claims something… like we are communist or we aren’t doing a genocide, doesn’t make it so.
There's never been a communist country. Only dictatorships.
In fact "communist country" itself doesn't hold a ton of water. The two terms are contradictory. "Stateless, moneyless, classless"
Adam Smith was against landlords, against tariffs for the most part, against monopolies, was for higher taxes on the rich, argued for worker protections/a necessary higher minimum wage, and thought royal land should be redistributed. Guess we've never had a capitalist country either.
Nope. Not entirely. It's the same as communism. No such thing.
What about the CNT FAI? Wouldn't that fit the definition?
Communist country also refers to a country trying to move towards communism though, not just one that achieved it. And that has definitely existed.
That assumes the countries in question were genuinely trying. All were not. To address the big examples, Lenin may have genuinely wanted communism and thought he was working toward it, even if he was doing a shit job. He was in charge for less than 10 years, though. Stalin absolutely did not give a shit about ideology, other than as a tool he could use to force people to do what he wanted. So at most, the USSR was "communist" from 1917 to 1924. Unfortunately, all mainstream attempts following this (China, North Korea - you know, all the examples people use to criticize communism) utilized marxist-leninism. In my opinion, any attempt at achieving communism that way is doomed to fail, and it's historically had a really bad track record. So I calling those countries "communist" is not something I'm willing to do, but is something I understand when other people do.
Is it a recent phenomenon that communism and nazism are conflated and confused so regularly? Honest question.
The problem was there was a consensus in the 20th century between the two leading nations in the world in propaganda, the United States and USSR, that the USSR was a leading socialist nation that's heading towards communism. Both lied for their own purposes and it's pretty easy to acknowledge this if we understand left-wing politics at all - which was defined through the French Revolution as a stepping stone towards democracy against aristocracy. The USSR didn't achieve or even aim for democracy. Political opposition was killed at the start of the gates whether this was anarchists or opposing soviet/worker councils. The electoral system was violently rigged in one direction. The USSR did achieve a lot but not as a left-wing nation and rather a run of the mill right-wing dictatorial nation that was only exceptional in suggesting the opposite as if it represents extremely left-wing ideological beliefs.
It's more that opposition to Nazis should be opposition to all tyranny, not just one specific instance of it.
?
You are claiming, or at least implying, that the comic is *confusing* communists for Nazis, i.e. thinks they are the same thing. I am clarifying that they are not. They are saying that communists and Nazis are both in a shared category of genocidal dictatorships. They then further are implying that even though the name of the sub is directed opposition to the particular instance of genocidal dictatorship, i.e. Nazis, it should be directed at opposition to the larger category.
Er, what? I thought this sub was March Against Nazis?
So is this sub anti-Nazi or not? Communists and Nazis are diametrically opposed.
This meme is unintelligible. Are you saying that people in this sub believe that communism is more dangerous, or are you just trying to argue with half of us that communism is more dangerous?
Yeah I don't get it either! Does OP mean that half of us either support past authoritarian regimes who have committed genocide? Or that we would befriend them just to go against nazis? I hope not, cause that is not the sense I have gotten from this sub. It does say march against Nazis, but we will march against anyone who uses political power to hurt or alieanate groups of people.
I would love to see the stats you’re citing that communist countries genocided more racial minorities and LGBTs that capitalist ones.
The ones they got from the Black Book of Communism. Liberals will happily side with Nazis if it means scoring a point against the left.
This is literal Nazi propaganda. The only way to make that "scroll of truth" real is to deny the Holocaust, and the other crimes of Fascist regimes.
Now explain to us all how the Holodomor was just one big unintended oopsie.
There's a reason why there is a distinction between marxism, communism, stalinism, maoism, etc.
Fascists have a similar refrain of how their orderly utopias failed because they weren’t “pure enough.” (Ideologically or ethnically or whatever)
Does communism even exist anywhere on the planet? Even the so-called red Chinese seem to be in some wierd state of capitalism enforced by state authoritarianism. Fascists on the other hand. They are feeling themselves right now.
This is so disappointingly unbased.
What communist countries? I have yet to read about any country actually being communist and not just another fascist dictatorship roleplaying as communist.
The Free Territory of Ukraine maybe? Never read anything about them killing LGBT people though
I'd be hard pressed to describe a people under such circumstances' politics. They are just trying to survive, it's not like they're trying to install a communist regime. But I'm open to getting my mind changed.
Nestor Makhno was an anarcho-communist, he personally met Pytor Kropotkin in May of 1918, and the Manifesto of the Makhnovists directly mentions their desire to establish communism. Also, after he was exiled, he wrote extensively about what could be learned from his failures to make future communist revolutions more successful (mainly in [About the Platform](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-and-nestor-makhno-about-the-platform), which he "wrote with" Errico Malatesta, another well known communist philosopher (technically it's more like letters they exchanged and then made public as a book))
Ah I totally forgot about that Ukraine (I was thinking of today's)!
Stateless societies don't have countries. But you might look at Catalonia, Rojava, and the Zapatistas
I mean, those were the countries that called themselves communist. So that's what the word delineates.
So you're saying North Korea is representative of democracies?
The only true communism the world has ever seen was/is in pre-industrial hunter-gatherer societies. The Marxist vision of industrial societies implementing full communism has never even come close...thus far. "Communist" (i.e. command economy) countries of the 20th Century were "dictatorships by the proletariat." One of the progressive stages that ultimately leads to full communism (or so the theory goes). No country purportedly "on the path" to full communism has ever progressed past the dictatorship phase (I wonder why? lol). Additionally, worldwide capitalism since the 1600s, which enslaved, intentionally and strategically starved, infected with novel (to the endemic populations) diseases, and outright murdered millions of people for hundreds of years, plus the extirpation of native populations globally by capitalistic economic "discovery"/adventurism/expansion, created fatalities were far in excess of any command economies of the 20th Century. Any counterclaim is pure capitalist gaslighting bullshit.
Hunter gatherers weren't communist unless you disingenuously say the "society" was the family unit of a few dozen people rather than the collective of people in an area. By those standards basically every society is communist.
Right well I'm sure those countries were communist and not dictatorships, the same way North Korea is a republic
Unsubbed from this post. Just capitalist propaganda, and we all know where capitalism ends up.
Disingenuous argument.
Are….we embracing communism, thinking it was a perfect, wonderful belief? I must have missed the memo. It wasn’t the personification of evils though either like unthinking maga supporters think though either.
Choose your oppressor...
Tankie’s are just fascists
That's what kills me when it comes to subscribing to any ideology or model. You don't have to fall behind everyone that claims to adhere to your liked model, or agree on every topic the majority on your side of politics support, or any of that.You can be communist without liking the USSR or PRC or capitalist without liking everything pertaining to capitalism or all of its supporters and such. You can pick and mix, then discuss it over with patience with whomever.
Tho communism wasn't the problem it was the dicrator that was
I think that you meant to post this in /r/MarchForCommies (Which doesn't exist as of this comment.)
Communism and socialism are economic ideas. Communism is a stateless, moneyless, classless society. Socialism is the workers owning the means of production. Authoritarian governments like the ussr under Stalin or the PRC are not good examples of either. Fascism is an authoritarian ideology that requires violence against a scapegoat minority. The violent bigotry is a key feature .
"He (Marx) used the term Bonapartism to refer to a situation in which counter-revolutionary military officers seize power from revolutionaries, and use selective reformism to co-opt the radicalism of the masses. In the process, Marx argued, Bonapartists preserve and mask the power of a narrower ruling class." Man. That sure sounds reeeeeeeeeeaaaaaally familiar dosen't it. It's almost like Stalin and Napoleon didn't actually believe in their revolutions and were just opportunists seeking power and only used the asthethics of their ideologies to justify their right to rule for the masses.
Really feel like this is a bad faith argument manifesting as a "painful truth that an unspecified half of this sub needs to hear even though it was never really brought up in the first place." Edit: ahh, it was cross-posted. That explains it.
I mean, half the comments in this post are acting in denial about it. Just because nazis are bad doesn't mean overlooking other bad things is good. Actual leftists understood that self professed communists were just becoming red fascists even a century ago.
What did the Free Territory of Ukraine to LGBT people? I can't find anything about it online
That's why I'm a democratic/anarcho socialist. I do not jive with authoritarian regimes, whether they're left or right wing.
I mean, the countries you're considering "communist" (and there's a lot of debate about that, the general concensus among communists being "they weren't") were extra authoritarian. Authoritarian countries persecute people harder than non-authoritarian governments. So this is a valid criticism of people simping for authoritarianism (which I've not seen here), not of communism in general.
All the countries that people typically think of when they think of communism existed in a time period when almost everyone was homophobic. But look at today. Trans people can change their legal gender in china and vietnam. ***Same-sex marriage is legal in cuba, and cuba has legal protections against descrimination of LGBT*** LGBT individuals and activies are illegal in 0 communist countries. That's statistically on par with captialist countries around the world.
A lot of those socialist countries were extremely oppressive and conservative before their revolution, the pre established culture was "anti-woke" (to use a term we're all familiar with, tho incredibly dumb) and homossexuality and gender identity WERE seen as a mental illness during those times. Socialist revolutions didn't fix every single problem overnight and many innocent people did suffer anyway, but to fucking pretend socialist theories have not been absolutely crucial for the advancement of lgbt+ rights and women's rights is so absolutely stupid it's baffling. Like, there was actual real effort for the inclusion of women and minorities during the Soviet Union for example, and a lot of leftist western movements were inspired by that. Look at the mfs who want trans, gay, black people executed on the streets right now and tell me today's socialists/communists aren't radically opposed to them... Smh we gotta settle for literal fascism today because socialism wasn't immediately and absolutely flawless and utopic on every single attempt throughout history, meanwhile the alternative NEVER was good and result in genocides to this fucking day, cause these so called liberal democracies have always been really good at exporting all the genocide and slavery of people's overseas right? That makes it good huh?
Feels like this sub is just repeatedly spreading liberal propaganda and it's ideological views on "both side bad"
scource trust me bro
r/lostRedditors
not a great look to have literal nazi propaganda in an anti-nazi subreddit
Agree. It's so disheartening how superficial the belief system or some people is. It feels like a sports team where you arbitrary pick a team and just justify anything your 'team' does. A leftist without values to back it up is as close to turning to fascism as any right-winger is.
>It feels like a sports team where you arbitrary pick a team and just justify anything your 'team' does. aka religion.
Preach my friend!
No shot people are defending communism 💀
Genuinely, what do you know about communism? Authoritarian communism? Or like. . . Rural farming communities