You must log in or register to comment.
- Capitalists living in socialism:
- Capitalists living in capitalism:
FTFY
I think there’s a difference between what most leftists want, and the authoritarian regimes with socialist branding that a couple tankies simp for.
Sincerely
- An Anarchist who has witnessed too many people die because of failings of the capitalist system.
Meta seems to have rolled out the new “AI” engagement profiles on the wrong platform.
i lived in socialist bulgaria, it was good
Never wanted so much to downvote something in my life. Capitalism has been riddled with issues and only just fixed itself with socialists solutions (regulating market, dismantling monopolies, social security, unemployment funds, stop segregation and abolish slavery, public services and housing…). You’re living in a Battle Royale and thinking it’s how it should be because, heck, you got free candies and you can “survive” on them (that is before catching diabetes).
Imagine calling Regulating Markets and Dismantling monopolies socialist policies. They are the foundation of capitalism.
Lemmy likes to say bad implementations of socialism are not true socialism but in the same breath call this “oligarchy neo liberalism mix” capitalism.
Lemmy likes to say bad implementations of socialism are not true socialism but in the same breath call this “oligarchy neo liberalism mix” capitalism.
Firstly, there’s a bunch of tankies on here who will pretend whatever the fuck a given fascist state is doing is somehow sincerely in aid of socialist aims as long as it has red on its flag, so you’re wrong about that.
Secondly, saying the problems of your “oligarchy neo liberalism mix” are due to capitalism shouldn’t be a problem because it’s true. Capitalism, through private ownership and the profit motive, intrinsically creates the incentive structures that turn capitalists into oligarchs.
This isn’t an argument, you’re just vaguely gesturing at imagined hypocrisy.
Secondly, saying the problems of your “oligarchy neo liberalism mix” are due to capitalism shouldn’t be a problem because it’s true.
Then Stalinism style authoritarianism is also due to socialism. Socialism, through the centralisation of power in the state intrinsically creates the incentive structures to turn Marxism into state authoritarianism.
Yeah nah. Any anarchist will tell you that centralisation of power in the state is not in fact an inherent trait of socialism. Statist socialists might think it’s ineffective, but it’s definitely possible to work towards communism by distributing power rather than concentrating it, and historical precedents for this do exist.
I guess I have a different perspective because Iived in the real existing socialism.
But fair enough, the upper picture with the rainbow does not really reflect the real existing capitalism.
As much as you think you “live in socialism”, your complain will most likely come from autoritarianism, productivism and global market/warfare issues. In the same way, socialism, communism and variants like socialist capitalism are a lot different, and people don’t always make a difference between them.
So you are bottom panel?
And you are the “very intelligent” guy. You can crawl back inside the well, thanks.
So, the person that you called out said they’ve lived through socialism and you come back with that’s not true socialism.
You’re panel 2
That is why I specified that I lived in the real existing socialism, not a idealized version.
Anyway, those all important nuances which memes normally don’t need to cramp in into a funny picture which is trying to make fun of tankies which I se here on Lemmy much more often than anywhere else I’ve participated on the internet.
Which socialism did you live in?
Poland until '89 when we fled to west Germany. My dad refused to join the party which made life much more complicated than it was for other members of the family who did.
It was the time of the martial law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law_in_Poland and my dad was often out protesting in the colemine until the tanks rolled in.
Martial law sounds dreadful. Glad you got the chance for a better life. Poland has come a long way since then.
They really did, it was hard work and so many of them had to go abroad for some time, but many came back with money waned there and helped building Poland to what it is today. It’s not perfect, but what a difference!
And that is why they also understand the real threat which is coming closer from Russia.
OP chose violence today
OP chose ignorance a long time ago
deleted by creator
Socialism is international, of course we haven’t seen true socialism or even near to full communism. For these things to take place it must be an international movement that captures beyond 50% globally or the largest manufacturing countries. And then to come to full communism we need the abolition of class, no poor, no capitalist and no vanguard- political class. And for socialism in the Marxist sense we need international revolution, not small reforms here and there, not the weird stalinistic approach of crippling some revolutions and helping others which.
Sorry you came from Poland that sucks but you guys wanted to hold onto your socialist politics as did Russia and many other failed socialist states then look what happened anyway, lost socialism now housing is fucked, rampant privatisation, racism, repression of workers. Poland, Russia, maybe even Cuba soon have sold what was the people from beneath their feet and again. The older soviet generation wanted a reformed state not a capitalist one. The younger generation now pole lower on it as they have no memory and only know what capitalism can offer.
A common person in the contemporary era is assailed by many threats to their autonomy: the religious, the nihilists, the corporatists, the fascists, and the alleged “collectivists”, who we’ll discuss here.
Extreme authoritarian “leftists”, A.K.A. “tankies” (i.e., apologists for Lenin, Stalin, Mao, the CCP, the DPRK, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Xi Jingping, etc.), are also threats to a free, egalitarian, and open society, are just as violent as their authoritarian competitors, and should be treated with the contempt, distrust, and ridicule they deserve.
Why?
They claim to speak and fight for the proletariat, promising a new utopia, never before seen, once their revolution executes the last “class-traitor”. In practice, once they’re finished with “seizing the means of production”, they’ll never relinquish control and become the new ruling class.
They’ll assume the mantle of an “enlightened elite post-revolutionary administration” to guide the proletariat to their promised utopia of “each according to their ability, to each according to their need”. In practice, "the party leadership needs the most, because they’re obviously the most able” in reorganizing the economic and political structure of society. The utopia of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” will never exist, only the dictatorship of the “revolutionary party” will, and repression and execution await those who question their claims and decisions.
These supposed champions of labor are really harbingers of death of the mind, body, and community. They claim to be the true authoritative “voice of the people”. Understand what they really are; power over everything and everyone, forever, is what they seek. They want you either as a true believer (a willing pawn) or dead, just like all of the other supposedly benevolent dictators who promised utopias throughout history.
They’re akin to the pigs in Orwell’s Animal Farm, the loudest voices in the revolution, usurpers of a righteous cause, but a bit “more equal” than everyone else after the farmer is done away with. Fortunately, the pigs, like the farmer, got their comeuppance in the end of the story. And like all pigs, they will squeal when things don’t go their way.
Never ever trust anyone or any group that says “I am/we’re in charge, fovever”.
You understand Orwell was a socialist, right?
Yes, he was. I would refine the description as a democratic socialist.
One can be a “socialist” and still be anti-authoritarian.
Demsocs explicitly are not socialist, they just want a welfare state.
And if course you can be socialist and antiauthoritarian, those are opposites.
those are opposites.
Not exclusively.
Nope, socialism is the answer to authoritarianism.
If we’re talking about economic systems or political parties, socialism can indeed be one “answer to authoritarianism”. It can also be authoritarian, even more than what its members seek to replace.
Nope, by its definition it’s a dictatorship of the proletariat, it’s not authoritarian to subvert the rich and prevent capital from affecting politics. But given you subscribe to China bad US good, the left wing isn’t really for you.
Removed by mod
Can you read?
No masters, no slaves. “Boy”.
Glad to hear you’re a communist and what you wrote was just ignorant bait.
I would say I’m more of a democratic market-socialist, with a strong preference for “consent of the governed”, and bottomless contempt for arbitrary authority.
That’s a communist, read your theory.
I have.
Then you know democracy is the foundation of communism and socialism and has market economics.
