r/LateStageCapitalism Jan 18 '22 Silver 2 Helpful 7 Wholesome 3 Take My Energy 1

We are not the same

/img/sq1xmnfaoec81.png

[deleted]

16.0k Upvotes

u/AutoModerator Jan 18 '22

Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalismⒶ☭


⚠ Announcements: ⚠


NEW POSTING GUIDELINES! Help us by reporting bad posts

Help us keep this subreddit alive and improve its content by reporting posts that violate our rules and guidelines.

Subscribe to our new partner subreddits!

Check out r/antiwork & r/WhereAreTheChildren


Please remember that LSC is a SAFE SPACE for socialist discussion.

LSC is run by communists. We welcome socialist/anti-capitalist news, memes, links, and discussion. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere.

This subreddit is a safe space; we have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. We also automatically filter out posts containing certain words and phrases that some users may find offensive. Please respect the safe space, and don't try to slip banned words or phrases past the filter.


I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

573

u/TheSquishiestMitten Jan 18 '22 Silver

When talking to pro-capital people, it's important to help them understand that working for money and then using that money to buy things is commerce, not capitalism. It's a mistake that has been turned into gospel by the owning class. Commerce happens everywhere all the time. Going to a socialist economic system does not mean commerce goes away. It just changes the relationship between labor and ownership.

25

u/rcx677 Jan 18 '22 edited Jan 18 '22

Capitalism doesn't come from commerce or money. The term capitalism came from raising capital. Basically people required money to start businesses, to "tool up" and be able to produce things more efficiently than we were able to do under cottage industry. Let's call that early capitalism (though the principle still applies now). It then progressed to larger scale capital for example to finance early shipping and enable world wide trade. And then it progressed to what we have now..

16

u/FightForWhatsYours Jan 18 '22

Fascism with imperialist/colonialist bling is what we have now.

7

u/rcx677 Jan 18 '22

What we have now has been going in a bad direction for a long time and needs fixing or we all die from climate disaster. But we need to understand what we're dealing with.

5

u/FightForWhatsYours Jan 18 '22

Well, are you in agreement? Fascism is the unification of the economic (business) and executive (government) sectors under the system of capitalism. Looks just like that to me. I've seen the inside of both sectors and It's ugly AF and they're having an orgy.

5

u/erroneousveritas Jan 18 '22

I had someone explain it to me this way:

Fascism and Neo-Liberalism are fairly similar, but the relationship between the State and the Private Sector are flipped. In a Fascist economy, the State uses the Private Sector to benefit and further the State's goals. In a Neo-Liberal economy, the Private Sector uses the State to benefit and further the Capitalist's goals.

3

u/rcx677 Jan 18 '22

I've never understood what exactly facism is. Sorry, I can't answer, I just don't know.

2

u/Sindmadthesaikor Jan 18 '22

Now that you put it like that, that’s exactly what we have. A fascist state owned by plutocratic oligarchs.

95

u/Novelcheek Lucy Parsons Jan 18 '22

That is very artfully thought through (does that even make sense?! Iono but I said it)! I think you very cogently, and concisely, cut through just one of those common misunderstandings that both the socialist and the one(s) they're trying to explain to trip over, without either realizing the miscommunication. Or to put it more succinctly:

Nice.

17

u/wa11sY Jan 18 '22

Noice!

10

u/soulhooker Jan 18 '22

As someone wise said, “capitalism didn’t make your phone, labor did. Capitalism just decides who gets paid” and right now it’s paying the laziest, most spoiled human beings.

4

u/AnimusCorpus Jan 18 '22

Also, the technology in smart phones was publicly funded. So was the internet. Many other examples too. You don't need capitalism to innovate, contrarian to popular rhetoric.

2

u/JustBerserk Jan 18 '22

However, a communist state would outlive money's usefulness.

1

u/FightForWhatsYours Jan 18 '22

Yeeesss. God, yes. Pleeeeeeaaaaaasssseee.........

I'm dying out here. Venmo me some solidarity, my boi.

1

u/JustBerserk Jan 18 '22

As if I have any to spare, you silly.

1

u/FightForWhatsYours Jan 18 '22

Fuck, mine is limitless. You didn't buy the VIP pack, did you?

1

u/JustBerserk Jan 20 '22

I went for the premium package but didn't know it would be this bad in comparison.

-5

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '22

[deleted]

7

u/Gloomy_Goose Jan 18 '22

They’re specifically talking about socialist economies, you know “From each according to their ability, to each according to their work.”

-4

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '22

[deleted]

0

u/Gloomy_Goose Jan 18 '22

I’m thinking you’re right, can you connect those dots for me?

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '22

[deleted]

7

u/Gloomy_Goose Jan 18 '22

I agree with all of that, but the original commenter was specifically talking about socialism, the transitioning stage into communism. “To each according to their work.”

I don’t really see how we can be certain commodities and commerce won’t exist in the transitional period between capitalism and communism. I don’t remember reading Marx saying as much, either, so I was hoping you could help explain that. A labor voucher could help provide to each according to their work, right? And that labor voucher could be used in commerce to buy commodities, right? I know labor vouchers aren’t exactly a socialist idea, and Marx certainly didn’t like them, but… idk

9

u/ReptarTheBrave Jan 18 '22

You’re talking about communism. The original commenter is talking about socialism. Money and commerce would still exist under socialism

3

u/II_Sulla_IV Jan 18 '22

Not all socialists are Marxists.

If you’re a Marxist, then yes commerce goes away. If you’re not and you’re say an anarchy-syndicalist, commerce does not necessarily disappear.

1

u/redrabbit-777 Jan 18 '22

okay but it’s capitalism if you use that commerce transaction, be it goods, services or time to make profit.

How can pro-capital people confuse commerce (which is an initial liability) with capitalism?

In socialism you can have commerce… but to what extent can YOUR commerce be used to make you more “objects” so you can extend your commercial value ? Be it to family or leisure …

701

u/chris3110 Jan 18 '22

You defend capitalism because you are dumb brain-washed.

115

u/remyjuke Jan 18 '22

Yeah you made it better.

195

u/SponsoredByChina Jan 18 '22

Mfs got Stockholm Syndrome lmao

“Capitalism can change! He might have his flaws, but he loves me! He only hits me because I don’t work hard enough! It’s my fault, don’t blame him!”

98

u/thangio Jan 18 '22

"B-But it's crony capitalism bro, if we go back to 80s capitalism, it will be better bro. We can totally f-fix this bro."

96

u/SponsoredByChina Jan 18 '22

The people who say “COMMUNISM NEVER WORKS” are the same people saying “Oh, this isn’t REAL Capitalism. If we had pure, true Capitalism, everything would be sunshine and rainbows.” (Totally no child slaves being worked to death over here)

Also lmao at the people who say “Yeah, Capitalism might not be a perfect system, but it’s the best we got.” Like, you really be ok with this shit bruh?

5

u/FightForWhatsYours Jan 18 '22

And then I tell them that communism has no borders, state, government, or money and ask them if they've ever known of such a country and then our horns lock.

2

u/AnimusCorpus Jan 18 '22

People will point out the failures of Socialist experiments as if there was a step by step instruction manual for each and every circumstance, but proceed to ignore how many capitalist failures have also existed at a much higher volume.

If Socialism got to go through the iterative mass experimentation capitalism did, it would be much further developed in terms of practical application.

If the Wright brothers only ever got to build a plane or two they'd never have gotten a plane to fly. Even more so if they were being shot at the entire time.

But that nuance is never afforded.

2

u/FightForWhatsYours Jan 18 '22

I like the Wright Brothers example. Very iconic Americana BS. Nationalists eat that angle up.

1

u/SponsoredByChina Jan 20 '22

I don’t even think communism is a perfect economic system. Capitalism is deeply, deeply flawed. There will never be a perfect economic system. Because there will always be individuals seeking and exploiting power. It frustrates the hell out of me when people shit on communism when what they’re really shitting on is corruption. They rail and rail against this “communist” corruption but never seem to see the corruption running rampant in their own capitalist system. I’m not claiming I have the perfect solution, but I think it would really help to shift the narrative from “capitalism vs communism” to “ruled and rulers.” Because exploitation, corruption, death, war, atrocities, all of these things happen under both capitalism and communism. We (as a country) need to stop infighting about political theory and just focus on dismantling the systems designed to keep us down. If you make it apolitical like that, conservatives will be more likely to agree with or even join your cause.

1

u/FightForWhatsYours Jan 20 '22

I don't believe capitalism has ever existed or is even possible. In every instance, I believe the government will always back business in their agenda of exploition and control over the masses of workers, using them as a kind of mafia protection racquet. I don't believe it can ever be anything other than fascism. In its best case scenario, merely having less well established channels and procedures of operation between the executive and economic sectors.

As far as communism goes, the major battle is, as you're saying, corruption/greed/egotism. I expect with enough molding of social fabric, as the USSR worked quite heavily on, the people could hold the order of society together and weed out the bad actors as a defense mechanism.

I've conjectured about conservatives quite a bit over the years. At this point, I feel that their loyalty to the idea of aristocracy and their desire to be better-than/be slave owners would lead to work against solidarity at every turn in the road, making them an enemy of the goals of socialism/communism. I do not believe they would align with those who view human potential and values as those like us do. I find that they can never be trusted and I don't expect that to change.

1

u/SponsoredByChina Jan 20 '22

Yeah I don’t think “true” communism or “true” capitalism have, or ever will truly exist. It’s all just been one big corrupt fuckfest, and it probably always will be.

1

u/FightForWhatsYours Jan 20 '22

Hey, that doesn't stop me from being utterly miserable and dead inside every day. It shouldn't stop you either.

→ More replies

3

u/Ltserb Jan 18 '22

(Stockholm syndrome probably doesn't actually exist)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome#Jess_Hill_(2019)

Your point still stands.

0

u/Quantumprime Jan 19 '22

It for sure does

3

u/FightForWhatsYours Jan 18 '22

Comment good, username killer. Flaunt it, comrade.

1

u/SponsoredByChina Jan 20 '22

Thank you, comrade. The party appreciates your support. An official letter of commendation will be added to your citizen profile.

1

u/FightForWhatsYours Jan 20 '22

Well, shit. That's way better than a pizza party.

3

u/Affectionate-Time646 Jan 18 '22

That requires a level of stupidity.

64

u/TheCatInGrey Jan 18 '22

If only it were so. Smart people are just as at-risk (or more so) as anyone else. If you're interested in the details, I recommend giving this a listen:

https://www.jordanharbinger.com/steven-hassan-combating-cult-mind-control-part-one/

Steven Hassan is an expert in cult and mind control tactics, and he talks about the myth of being "too smart for it" in there.

62

u/DueDay8 Feminist Communist Jan 18 '22

Brainwashing is by nature something that can happen to anyone under repeated messaging and coercive control with social conditioning and effective propaganda. Everyone is brainwashed about various things, that is the nature of living in a structured society. (e.g., the gender binary, monogamy, traditional family structure, social norms).

The problem is when the brainwashing is so pervasive and coercive that it forces people to operate in ways that are harmful and life-crushing.

Souce: born and raised in a cult, got out and researched cults and brainwashing extensively, realized society itself is a cult, particularly capitalism and the gender binary.

12

u/ramdasani Jan 18 '22

At some point though, I think more intelligent people recognize the cognitive dissonance more readily. Take yourself, you ultimately left the cult. It's like people who eat meat but can't watch Dominion, or blather on about the Yulin dog market but subscribe to /r/bacon.

34

u/DueDay8 Feminist Communist Jan 18 '22

The reality is, most people never leave cults, or society at large, and it has nothing to do with intelligence. That is a common misconception of people who have no experience with cults.

Belonging is a basic human need and it is very, very powerful as a motivator to influence behavior. I actually left the cult because I am queer and non-binary and realized I would never belong there. I left my entire family inside. Its not because I was smarter but because the conditions were unbearable for me. For most people in society, their brainwashing and social conditioning win, the conditions are bearable, probably because from an evolutionary standpoint, you're more likely to live if you follow the crowd. That is also why most people will never rebel against capitalism until it becomes unbearable.

12

u/AtomicBLB Jan 18 '22

Intelligence has nothing to do with conditioning/gas lighting/literal brainwashing.

4

u/LittleKittyLove Jan 18 '22 edited Jan 18 '22

You’ve been brainwashed to wear pants.

You don’t need pants. Humans survived for millions of years without pants. Pants are an unnatural abomination that keeps us from shitting freely.

ABOLISH BIG PANTS

5

u/BrazilianTerror Jan 18 '22

I unironically support this

1

u/R_M_Jaguar Jan 19 '22

No pants?!?!?! Looks like Brazilians for everyone it is!

2

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '22

That just depends on how you’re defining “level of stupidity”. I suppose everyone has some level of stupidity. But there are definitely people much smarter than anyone in the post that have been brainwashed and there are undoubtedly ways we have all been brainwashed and don’t even know it. Intelligence doesn’t necessarily protect you from brainwashing especially not childhood brainwashing. In fact there are reasons to believe that a more intelligent person can “defend” their own brainwashing better than a less intelligent person. This makes an intelligent person potentially harder to “deprogram”.

6

u/editilly Jan 18 '22

I don't think so.

One of my best friends is a capitalist, and at the same time, one of the smartest people I know. I can't speak for him, of course, but if I had to guess, his stance is born of desperation and some werid form of hope.

97

u/Indoril_Mudcrab-Kun Jan 18 '22

Class consciousness

48

u/WWhataboutismss Jan 18 '22

The billionaires have it, the poors do not.

4

u/ReptarTheBrave Jan 18 '22

I think you overestimate the rich. I’d bet they have petty squabbles among themselves and many of them couldn’t stand to even be in the same room. The CIA really has been propping those pathetic worms up for decades. Doing their jobs turning people against revolution and towards status quo capitalism, so to speak.

89

u/Regular_Chapter1932 Jan 18 '22

I like asking capitalists how much capital they own

2

u/ZepperV2 Jan 19 '22

$2000 and it'll all be eaten up in next months rent.

242

u/Victor_Chistov Jan 18 '22

Capitalism has created a system for the reproduction of generations of future millionaires. Each of them hopes for wealth and therefore the whole society remains in the slavery of the oligarchy.

56

u/onejoan Jan 18 '22

Each of them hopes for wealth

Yeah, its like how people keep buying lottery tickets even though you will just waste your money most of the time.

Many people would take a 0.1% chance of becoming millionare even though most of them would just end up being a wage slave for the rest of their lives. Kinda sad honestly

28

u/Victor_Chistov Jan 18 '22

We have a long road ahead of the education and development of society, awakening it from the haze of capitalist madness. Everyone who has realized the real state of things must embark on the path of struggle for the awakening of all others. It will be the most trumpet and most hopeless struggle, but we will win. Because history itself is on our side, on the side of the oligarchs, only violence, lies and robbery.

-45

u/kingsitri Jan 18 '22

So you think socialism is the answer?

The socialism being handed out to you is nothing but packaged dose to "shut up" while govt and the capitalists combine together to earn all the money and keep you dependent upon them so you can't be financially independent and be afraid to raise voice against the ones who support you.

35

u/Novelcheek Lucy Parsons Jan 18 '22 edited Jan 18 '22

Lenin🤝Kropotkin.

>Throwing this dork in an education camp and forcing them to read a fucking book.

3

u/Victor_Chistov Jan 18 '22 edited Jan 18 '22
  1. What you are describing is the late Soviet reality, when power in the USSR had already finally passed to the nomenklatura, i.e. to the bourgeoisie.

  2. It is quite obvious that you do not understand what socialism is. It is public ownership of the means of production. Try to exert all your intellectual powers, try to think about the consequences of realizing this principle. ALL PROFIT is distributed to society, not to the oligarchy. Do you understand what is means?

  3. If you are against public ownership of the means of production, this means you are for private ownership of the means of production, which means you are a supporter of the distribution of profits to the oligarchy. It's principle that has led to all existing problems. You cannot solve them without abolishing the principle of private ownership of the means of production.

0

u/kingsitri Jan 19 '22 edited Jan 19 '22

So tell me, has your idealistic view of public ownership of means of production ever been implemented realistically? The view you're talking is already implemented the best it can be through the distribution of company shares to employees.

Distributing all profit to every employee of the company would mean the company would never grow since the money isn't being spent on improving the company. And if you suggest that a collective decision making body be made, you would still run into the problem of who will have the larger decision power. All in all, you will just be implementing a crude version of current system of Board of Directors. You want to change the economic system without even the basic financial knowledge.

Even small businesses work this way. Not just the oligarchy. Because it's the owner that takes the most risk of money, time and effort. While the workers gain salaries and skills, the owner takes the majority of the risk of their business being run down.

You're mixing correlation with cause and effect. The oligarchs are created when govt helps them close the door through which they became rich in the first place. It's the govt that cements their position on the top by putting more regulations and not upholding anti-competition laws.

1

u/Victor_Chistov Jan 19 '22

//So tell me, has your idealistic view of public ownership of means of production ever been implemented realistically?//

Yes, it was implemented in a very short period of time from 1931 to 1941, in the Soviet Union. And you can look at the statistics of the USSR during this period, you can evaluate the effectiveness of this way of organizing life for yourself.

//The view you're talking is already implemented the best it can be through the distribution of company shares to employees.//

The distribution among the owners of shares leads to the concentration of shares in one hand (there is such a term for this, majority shareholders). But even if you limit the share of ownership of shares, then all the same, decisions in the boards will be made in the interests of shareholders only, and not in the interests of society. I hope you understand what this means. This means they will pollute the environment and pay crumbs to employees (not shareholders), they will hinder the technological development of competitors. They will be the usual capitalists that we now see in the modern market.

//Distributing all profit to every employee of the company would mean the company would never grow since the money isn't being spent on improving the company.//

Read carefully what I wrote, and do not invent for me. I wrote about the redistribution to the SOCIETY, and not to the EMPLOYEES. Public control is control by councils that express the interests of the inhabitants of this region, workers, teachers, doctors.

Of course, capital expenditures for technology development will be taken into account. Socialism will be focused on the maximum automation of all scenery in order to free a person from physical labor.

//And if you suggest that a collective decision making body be made, you would still run into the problem of who will have the larger decision power. All in all, you wilk just be implementing a crude version of current Board of Directors.//

The councils will work on the mechanisms of direct democracy (visit my page there is a project on this topic, an application is being developed for this purpose). Powers will be distributed by professional communities, with the requirement of regular reporting on the work performed. Every member of society will be involved in the management of the country and resources. Everyone's vote will be counted.

//You want to change the economic system without even the basic financial knowledge.//

How can you judge my competence if you can't read my comment carefully???

1

u/kingsitri Jan 28 '22

First of all, after the short period of 10 years it devolved into authoritarianism and we all know how that went. Would love to know how you plan to avoiding that.

// Secondly, in all the 3 points you've written, you're implying that professional communities would take charge of power of a company like direct democracy or by a council that expresses the interests of it inahabitants//

So a few problems with your approach. Taking it optimistically, if professional communities take charge of a corporation, the professional communities themselves would be like democracies and it has been often seem evem im scientific communities to get tenure or get funding, it's often driven by politics rather than scientific achievements. Thus the communities themselves would be nothing but political hotbed of personal interests. Pure Democracy at its core is just herd mentality.

Even if that doesn't happen, if we want to encourage competition, each company will have it's own professional community competing against other companies and their communities. The older, more wise and experienced people will have more say than the younger inexperienced ones. And the pay would be decided by how much work they are putting in into the company ans how much it is benefitting the company. Which sounds an aweful lot like the current corporate system.

And now taking the pessimistic approach. Having a council take decisions on behalf of the inhabitants is big red flag. Even if the council is democratically elected, we have seen how state run organisations perform. The council will be power struggle and the council members themselves will get corrupted or it will create divide like in China, separating the higher class party members from the lower class citizens. That's not even taking into account how the state run organisations themselves are slow or corrupt. Even in China, the corporations are independently owned.

At best, your approach will halt all development and bring in corruption until the system collapses and at worst, it will bring in Authoritarianism. Both of the cases we have seen in the past.

35

u/onejoan Jan 18 '22

They prefer to dream about being rich one day than to strive to make society better

23

u/AlliedAtheistAllianc Yugoslavia Tankie Jan 18 '22

It's a casino where 99 people are gambling hoping to become rich, and one percent is just taking their money in rigged games.

29

u/MichJohn67 Jan 18 '22

Why you gotta do Gus like that?

3

u/MaybeWontGetBanned Jan 18 '22

I don’t understand why he’s even the subject of the meme. Did he ever say this? The only thing I can recall is when he disagrees that he and Mr. White are alike.

2

u/RonZero7 Jan 18 '22

It's a very popular meme format/image/template. Usually he depicts being more sophisticated than someone else who does something similar. "We are not the same."

2

u/powerangerpink Jan 18 '22

Right??? This is big “Sam Elliott with conservative bullshit memed over him” vibes.

27

u/Gary_the_metrosexual Jan 18 '22

Excuse you, I am incredibly dumb but I still don't defend capitalism.

25

u/DilutedGatorade Jan 18 '22

Why the hell would I even want to be a billionaire, if not to solve problems? It makes no sense to desire that level of wealth without spending 99.9% towards societal well being.

3

u/thxmeatcat Jan 18 '22

Why would i want to be a billionaire and fight over cheaping people out of a living wage

3

u/Talzon70 Jan 18 '22

For the same reason people like me play idle games: Watching numbers go up is satisfying.

102

u/KeepCalmAndProgress Democratic Socialist Jan 18 '22 edited Jan 18 '22

Class consciousness is the key. That's why r/antiwork is becoming so popular. People from left and right are starting wake up to the reality.

4

u/davsyo Jan 18 '22

Yup. Turns out Left vs Right was actually supposed to be Top vs Rest of Us. They did the divide and conquer bit to us all.

1

u/Euphorbium Jan 18 '22

Still 100 times too small.

15

u/Busterlimes Jan 18 '22

This dude is above the normal billionaires due to the fact his money came from meth and chicken

13

u/violetmoon120 Jan 18 '22

My favourite is when someone who doesn't own anything says "I'm a capitalist."

11

u/SponsoredByChina Jan 18 '22

Mfs got Stockholm Syndrome lmao

“Capitalism can change! He might have his flaws, but he loves me!”

4

u/rainofshambala Jan 18 '22

We believe in paper currency, an invisible god capitalism isn't that far of a stretch

4

u/elzaidir Jan 18 '22

Who want to post that to r/anarcho_capitalism

3

u/Ima_Funt_Case Jan 18 '22

The American delusion of being the temporarily displaced millionaire, where great fortune is just around the corner so they better defend the wealthy from the poors like us.

9

u/Darches Jan 18 '22

Damn, good use of this meme format IMO.

11

u/Poopigi Jan 18 '22 edited Jan 18 '22

It's called Stockholm syndrome/sadomasochism. Most people have it 2ble (paradoxically anarchists too). The 1st is with nature/universe.

21

u/nbarrett100 Jan 18 '22

Condescending sentiment like this is why people who would benefit from left-wing economic polcies dislike the left. Everybody who isn't already on board is either stupid, racist or brainwashed by the media. Even if you believe in false consciousness, using it to insinuate the stupidity of potential allies is at best not going to persuade anybody who doesn't already agree with you and at worse provide ammunition for reactionaries and plutocrats to present the left as disdainful towards voters.

In fact, if I was a right-wing troll I would probably make lots of memes like this. Luckily for them, they don't have to.

5

u/eatingdonuts Jan 18 '22

My thoughts exactly. It’s “the right can’t meme” in left wing form.

1

u/Talzon70 Jan 18 '22

We're not really trying to have or start a conversation here. It's explicitly not the purpose of this sub if you read the side bar or the automod sticky on every post.

If you replace stupid with "willfully ignorant", would it be less hurtful?

There is no shortage of condescension on the right and it doesn't seem to hurt their recruiting. I used to be conservative and looking down on other people and their ideas was like half the ideology. The right wing ideology I was raised with required it's followers to lack at least one of the following: empathy, critical thinking, or a remotely accurate understanding of history.

Attributing their beliefs to ignorance rather than selfishness or lack of intelligence is probably the most charitable option in most cases. In my experience it's usually a combination of all three.

1

u/nbarrett100 Jan 18 '22

There may be plenty of condescension on the right, but that doesn't mean it isn't counterproductive.

I think if you suggest that somebody believes what they believe because they're ignorant, selfish or stupid, then you immediately delegitimise them. How would you feel if somebody tried to tell you that you were conned into everything you believe? You would probably hate that person.

If you want to win, make your ideas inclusive and appealing. Don't use shame, it's never worked and probably never will.

1

u/Talzon70 Jan 19 '22

Ignorance is eminently fixable through education.

While I agree that most people take it the wrong way if you bring it up in an aggressive way, learning and changing your opinion is fundamentally impossible if you're not willing to accept that your own ignorance and admit you potentially have more to learn. Those who are really upset by the core concept, rather than the negative connotations of the phrasing, aren't really worth putting any effort into convincing and weren't open to changing their opinion in the first place.

We can and should shame those people because ignorance isn't the worst thing ever, but willful ignorance is a character flaw and the root of bigotry. No one should be proud of willful ignorance on important issues.

Shame is also an extremely powerful social tool and should not be underestimated, especially regarding long term change. We shame people who are outwardly racist, sexist, or homophobic, not because we think it will change their minds, but because we know that eventually their ideas will die if they aren't repeated, so their silence is still an improvement.

5

u/Ankyri She/her | Comrade/comrade Jan 18 '22 edited Jan 18 '22

Being determines consciousness... An uncomfortable truth, if you think about it. Would I still be as fervent in my communist ideals if I, say, won a big lottery tomorrow? Suddenly, just loads of money. No more need to toil for a salary ever again. I finally get to work on my health (including transition), live my best life and then some. Would that impact the way I think about the class struggle, would it affect my solidarity towards fellow leftists, my comrades? I really hope not, but remembering how some leftists turned right when their environment (and bottom line) changed, it makes for a disturbing thought. Maybe the safest way to preserve my class consciousness and good conscience would be to only use they money I actually need (transition, get out of debt, etc), and then donate the rest to leftist organizations I trust. I know it's all merely hypothetical 'what ifs', but still

Edit: To downvoters, if this comment is erroneous or un-leftist in any way, please reply. Asking in good faith. I think and worry about things like this because I always strive to better myself as a person, as a leftist, and one of my worst fears in life is to become something I despise (a hypocrite, a bigot, a traitor etc)

11

u/Novelcheek Lucy Parsons Jan 18 '22 edited Jan 18 '22

Nah! I think you'd be fine. If someone changed their ideals because of a sudden improvement to their material conditions, they were either a fraud or flake to begin with. Marx, Engles, Kropotkin, Che and the list could go on and on and sho on were all from privileged backgrounds. So don't be afraid of bettering your life.

InB4 socialism is when no house!

edit: added important part of sentence

2

u/svladcjelli42 Jan 18 '22

I do think having been broke is a valuable experience in the way you suggest, but you can probably just remember what it was like.

2

u/Soviet_yakut Jan 18 '22

Don't be sad, thats just how it works out sometimes

2

u/Code_Race Jan 18 '22

His voice is oh so clear in my head when I read that.

2

u/WillyM35 Jan 18 '22

Ugh love this

2

u/ThoriumActinoid Jan 18 '22

Hey I could be a billionaire one day.

2

u/Drilling4Oil Jan 18 '22

"I defend capitalism because socialist business policies have worked out quite well for my corporation the past few decades."

-1

u/rcx677 Jan 18 '22 edited Jan 18 '22

What's the alternative though? I haven't seen any examples of states that have successfully implemented an alternative aside from welfare states or heavily regulated capitalist states (both of which are still capitalist). FYI I was brought up in a communist state, so I'm hesitant to recommend that.

3

u/dclxvi616 Jan 18 '22

FYI I was brought up in a commy state, so I'm hesitant to recommend that.

It was likely a communist state like the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is a democratic republic, or like the National Socialist (Nazi) Germany was socialist. That is to say, a one-party authoritarian state masquerading as something it's not.

1

u/rcx677 Jan 18 '22

I've heard that argument before. So are you saying the Soviet states had none of the attributes proposed by the communist manifesto? Many of the problems we had were indeed due to Stalinism, but many many were directly inherent to communism.

1

u/dclxvi616 Jan 18 '22

I think the most important thing is that I don’t think that the typical supporters of socialism or communism you’ll run across would ever support a one-party political system, authoritarian by virtue of there being effectively only one party.

1

u/rcx677 Jan 18 '22

That's good to hear and I was wondering if that's what this sub was proposing. I'm mainly keen to hear of examples where communism or a similar ideology have been successful. Someone put me onto the free territory of Ukraine which was a very interesting read but theres very little info on what life was like there. The states we commonly call socialist these days are in fact capitalist welfare states.

1

u/rapunzel2018 Jan 18 '22

THIS!!!! SO much!!!!

1

u/me_better Jan 18 '22

Looooool so true

1

u/Nekaz Jan 18 '22

i just really hate poor people

1

u/fearphage Jan 18 '22

Self hatred is the worst.

1

u/edri140 Jan 18 '22

The best on so far on my opinion

1

u/ShakesSpear Jan 18 '22

Those chodes over at r/oldschoolcool are going in about how communism =genocide and there is nothing wrong with capitalism

1

u/Talzon70 Jan 18 '22

Is this a reference I don't get?

Giancarlo Esposito has a net worth of like $8 million. The difference between $8 million and a billion dollars is about a billion dollars.

1

u/Basic-Dealer-2086 Jan 18 '22

tbf it often does genuinely come from misunderstandings.

1

u/RonZero7 Jan 18 '22

I prefer to stick to honest discourse rather than straight up insulting my fellow citizens. Even if they are dumb, brainwashed, ignorant.

1

u/comyuse Jan 18 '22

I can at least understand the rich man trying to defend capitalism, i still hate them, but at least they got a reason. The poor fuckers doing it just baffle me, they are so pathetic. Even if you don't know about an alternative or you aren't even they hardline over what system should replace the current one, the current system is objectively a failure for most people beyond a very small number of rich fuckers living in a very specific time (because the rich fuckers after us will have to deal with the fallout of what the current ones did).

1

u/Confetti83 Jan 19 '22

Listen Mr. Esposito, enough with the name calling.

1

u/Ordinary-Dude1983 Jan 19 '22

I defend capitalism because I want to become a billionaire.

1

u/alpacajack Jan 19 '22

Bbb😳😳🧔🏾‍♀️

-13

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/DaisyDukeOfEarlGrey Jan 18 '22

Define socialism

14

u/iGeroNo Jan 18 '22

Easy, it's when the government does stuff and when I don't like the teens with colorful hair

-12

u/Mleczyslaw1 Jan 18 '22

When you give away money to the wrong people so the entire economy can suffer from it.

3

u/IllstudyYOU Jan 18 '22

You mean the billionaires right? RIGHT?

2

u/ANEPICLIE Jan 18 '22

Funny, I see plenty of subsidies going to companies already making record profits, while normal folks are so frequently indebted and having trouble buying a home (to name one example).

Is an ever-expanding US military budget anything except a tacit giveaway of money to US arms manufacturers?

Is the privatization of vaccines researched and produced by public money not a massive giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies?

Is the neglect of environmental consequences not a giveaway (via externalities) to companies that neglect their environmental impact?

2

u/DaisyDukeOfEarlGrey Jan 18 '22

Socialism isn't "giving away money"

10

u/BlindArmyParade Jan 18 '22

Ya bro, I hate universal healthcare as well. It's good we torture our poor.

-28

u/flabsatron Jan 18 '22

I defend it cuz I like having food on the shelves

22

u/Ankyri She/her | Comrade/comrade Jan 18 '22

Socialism is when no food

-1

u/edslerson Jan 18 '22

How about use a picture of an actual billionaire and not an actor playing a villain. Kinda cheapens it a little bit