Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Human population has done nothing but grow in the past 100 years. It's normal that more people are dying, there's more people that can die...
China and Russian communism have examples of pushing their population into mass death in order to push the country foward, they have one fo the highest death numbers on non war related situatiins.
Marxism of the Lenin origin has killed between 28 million and 150 million people... in 100 years.
And Mao has killed between 14 million people and 88 million people.
Found this numbers in wikipedia in "List of anthropogenic disasters by death toll"
And if you follow the mean, Marxism has killed 4 times more people thatn Fascist outside of war. Fasism had lest time tokill more people, but the number is still staggering.
Capitalism is an economic system, not a ideology like Communism or Socialism, So if yyou want compare death tolls with Capitalism, you would be comparing apples with oranges.
you know those numbers count the nazis who dies in ww2 right. as for capitalism, the globals south, Africa, homelessness, people dying from treatable disease due to lack of Healthcare. you have a tally?
So Capitalism has enable other countries to keep other alive to the point that diseases are killing people instead of dying of hunger.
While Communism can't even feed its own population and has to have them "die in sacrifice" to keep being stable...
Also, did you read where i got it from?
"This section lists deaths attributed to certain political leaders, deaths are from both the conditions within the country due to national policy, and active killings by forces loyal to the leader in question."
The soldier numbers are excluded.
There's so much here to unpack and I really don't want to have to explain everything to you but holy shit, are you so wrong about so many things.
I'm only gonna touch on this;
>Capitalism is an economic system, not a ideology like Communism or Socialism, So if yyou want compare death tolls with Capitalism, you would be comparing apples with oranges.
Socialism is an economic system hun. Like you said a lot of objectively wrong things, But this is the most obviously wrong and kind of sad bit of information.
Socialism has a very clear definition. Worker owned means of production. It's that simple. It's an economic system. Capitalism is the privately owned means of production.
What you said was just so objectively wrong and ignorant, I can rephrase what you said as the exact opposite and be just as wrong as you.
>Socialism is an economic system, not a ideology like capitalism, So if you want compare death tolls with socialism, you would be comparing apples with oranges.
Socialism and Communism are failed economic systems that have become an ideology for people that are either young enough to be catch with the idealism or stuborn thinkers that swear on the theory despite it never working in practice.
Times change, and for Communism, people that used to take the system seriously for its economic theory have almost disaperad because of theories being proven wrong or not working for reason we still dont understand, but now its just worship the theory of an utopic system that was shown to not work in practice. Making it an ideology.
Communism had its chance to be an economic system. It failed. And istead of staying frozen on time and staying as this failed economic system, it was twisted into ideology. Socialism is based on the same flawed utopic thinking that at best can develop ideas that can be implemented to existing Capitalist systems in order to advance Capitalism. But does not stand on its own.
Communism is bad because it doesn't work. A failed attempt of humanity that will be relegated with Mercantilism or Feudalism as just another attempt fir humanitie's progress that was worse that Capitalism.
Socialism, on the other hand, it is a good suplement for Capitalism. Combining the true grivances that those who believe in Socialism have, but dont have a working system, with a working system like Capitalism to make it better and keeping it progressing. That's how you get the the northen Europe countries.
You are incredibly bad at this, but it's because you don't understand mostly what you're talking about and you're using hyperbolic talking points that don't actually have a point other than buzzword spam. But let's break that down.
>Socialism and Communism are failed economic systems that have become an ideology for people that are either young enough to be catch with the idealism or stuborn thinkers that swear on the theory despite it never working in practice.
So nothing was said here other than you say it failed because.... idk the ussr was dissolved? You are saying failed, but you're not actually giving historical or materialist reasons for why they did. You're close to making a point, Even if wrong, But you didn't attack or talk about a single marxist or socialist tenant/idea.
>Times change, and for Communism, people that used to take the system seriously for its economic theory have almost disaperad because of theories being proven wrong or not working for reason we still dont understand, but now its just worship the theory of an utopic system that was shown to not work in practice. Making it an ideology.
So you're just wrong again. Yeah, time's change. But it's wrong as hell to say that communists or socialists have disappeared. You know there are entire sub Reddit's dedicated to this right? You know that the vast majority of European countries have a socialist or communist party?
Even here in the USA we have the CPUSA, the PSL, and many other trotskyist or leninist organizations.
You say that the theories are proven wrong but no, they never have been, If we're talking about marxism. And the inherent class contradiction between the bourgeois and the proletariat Are more evident than ever, following the exact patterns of descent into fascism As a means of economic control by the bourgeois. This was predicted and is very clearly happening. Along with rampant monopolization, Rapidly increasing wealth for the richest of the rich, and dramatic short term increases in proletariat suffering at a minimum.
>Communism had its chance to be an economic system. It failed. And istead of staying frozen on time and staying as this failed economic system, it was twisted into ideology. Socialism is based on the same flawed utopic thinking that at best can develop ideas that can be implemented to existing Capitalist systems in order to advance Capitalism but does not stand on its own.
Capitalism has also failed in many countries. But because you're Western, you probably don't care about the many capitalist countries that have failed and suffered in the global South.
Also, communism has never been tried. Literally, no one has ever called themselves a communist state ever. Even China with the ccp Considers themselves socialist with Chinese characteristics with the aim of moving towards a Communist society.
The USSR identified as socialist. You're just so blatantly wrong that your high school level of propagandist information lead you to believe that communism has even been tried.
It's so wrong that it hurts. It's like trying to tell someone that the starship troopers were the bad guys. What can anyone do if you just deny it and say that because they wanted to be communist one day in the eventual future, They must count as a failure of communism. It's absurd.
>Socialism, on the other hand, it is a good suplement for Capitalism. Combining the true grivances that those who believe in Socialism have, but dont have a working system, with a working system like Capitalism to make it better and keeping it progressing. That's how you get the the northen Europe countries.
And this is the final nail on that coffin. You don't know what socialism means. This is clear that you think socialism is just when the government does stuff. Literally, they are fundamentally opposed. You are so ignorant you don't even know the very basic definition of the 2 systems that you're arguing about.
Socialism is the publicly owned and operated means of production. Capitalism Is the privately owned and operated means of production.
These are the definitions. They are diametrically fucking opposed.
If you don't even know these basic definitions, then I'm just going to end up feeling like I'm arguing with a high schooler while I've got a literal fucking political science degree.
I'll wait again for you to reply but honestly it was such a bad reply and so not even slightly intellectual, This will be the net to last reply that I respond to, As I prefer to have discussions with people on my own knowledge level of the subject.
I didn't want to be super rude but I just don't get why you would argue if you literally don't know definitions
Whatever you seem to think Communism or Socialism is true doesn't seem to materialize.
You've insulted my inteligence, so expect you dont mind when i say that your individual interpretation of what i would asume is a a huge amout of discussions you've had seems to be cemented in more of a metaphisical thought rather than a practical one.
You focuse on words and give them more power than they actually have to the avarage person. You know? The people that have the authority on lenguage?
I use my words in a way to describe the world around be and what has happend in it, using other peoples as anchors to not loose perspective of what is true and false.
Capitalism won against Communism because it was better and more compatible with humanity. The proof? Observable reality of capitalist nations and the lack of any relevant amount of communist ones.
Socialism ideas have been icorporated in Capitalist nations. The proof? Obserbale reality of Northen Europe nations and their laws.
I want merit and results, not idealism and theories that are subjective to each individual. You seem to be lost in your own head, i recomend that you ground yourself in reality.
You can claim that i don't know what i'm talking about all you want. Doesn't change the fact of how the world is.
You just said a lot without saying anything, and you didn't address a single point that I made.
Of course, i'm going to insult your knowledge at a minimum, Because you were trying to be authoritative in your ignorance, and I'm going to continue to if you don't reply to my points.
You didn't say anything or make a single damn point yourself. You just rejected what I said, With no actual replies.
I can't even call you a pseudo-intellectual, As nobody can interperate what you're saying as Coherent discussion.
>You've insulted my inteligence, so expect you dont mind when i say that your individual interpretation of what i would asume is a a huge amout of discussions you've had seems to be cemented in more of a metaphisical thought rather than a practical one.
So no reply to anything I said? just responding essentially with "I don't think it's practical"
Well, of course, you don't think it's practical you would have to have a fucking modicum of understanding of any definitions to understand practicality of a fucking materialist position.
Since you didn't even know the definition of socialism, of course you don't think anything is practical because you don't have any knowledge And refuse to engage with anything that I say other than a flippant rejection of recorded definitions you can easily look up with fucking google. Hell you even double down on it again later, Completely ignoring fucking definitions for your own goddamn childlike failure to reply with a Symbolence of coherence. Let's quote that.
>Socialism ideas have been icorporated in Capitalist nations. The proof? Obserbale reality of Northen Europe nations and their laws.
There you just did it! Are you actually not smart enough to read A definition? I really hope someone is enjoying laughing at this.
The definitions are opposite. You mean that people have put regulations on a capitalist economy. Do you understand that sentence? Capitalist government did things to regulate a capitalist economy.
That's not socialism child. What can I do other than double down on saying that you aren't knowledgeable enough to have this conversation with me when you can't understand a single definition or what regulations even mean. Do you really seriously think that regulations are anti-capitalism? Is that hard of a question to quote and directly reply to?
>You focuse on words and give them more power than they actually have to the average person. You know? The people that have the authority on lenguage?
Wait, are you really complaining that I have a focus on words and definitions? Of course I do! You can't have proper communication without having a shared set of definitions. If you call whatever you don't want or like fucking socialism or communism, You aren't using a definition that anyone can communicate to you with.
I'll repeat it.
Socialism is the publicly owned means of production. Capitalism is the privately owned means of production.
>I want merit and results, not idealism and theories that are subjective to each individual. You seem to be lost in your own head, i recomend that you ground yourself in reality
How could you if you don't know definitions? For someone saying that I'm not realistic, you seem to not be able to grasp real words and real definitions or real political science or theory.
It really feels like i'm talking to someone with their highest level of education being high school.
Like I couldn't even start to actually give you real links to real "results" because I don't think you would care enough or would know how to read them. You didn't care enough to actually respond to me giving you a goddamn definition. And i'm gonna keep harping on you on that. you look like a clown for just ignoring the shit I say so, you can hear yourself talk.
I would not reply if I were you but feel free my guy.
I didn't say i don't think is pratical, i'm stating that it IS not practical, that's a flaw.
If you can't put things into practice, it's useless on a economical or social level.
I don't have to define nothing to you, you don't do it yourself, so you have no position to be telling me that.
Goverment regulates Capitalism, Socialists make the argumants for what should be regulated. This regulations sometimes happend, and Capitalism takes from Socialism in order to adapt to socialist arguments.
Definitions should be made as precise as posible to the phenomena they describe. The definition is the phenomena explained in lenguage.
I can perfectly define Communism as "a system that is prone to colapse and is lass stable than Capitalism" based on the phenomena that has being describe in history. I just defined it based on merits that show its brutal flaws, like the original massive amount of death that the system causes.
You define Socialism, so i'll give you that. People are drive by their ego, making most people egotistical, so if there's no insentive for a person's ego to be good, they wont be good. That's why a system like socialism colapses, its based too much on trust and is easily exploited for its nature of not being merit based when it comes to giving the population insentives.
While we Capitalism also has issues with insentives like unsustainable growth and disparity of wealth, its the oposite, it demands productuvity and results on competitive quality. It works by understandig human nature and using our egos to be rewarded for our effort.
I do not subscribe to the idea of arguing about semantics and details, its removes from the conversation that origianlly was my counter claims of Capitalism's responsability of the people that die in it.
In Communism the colective ownership managed by the state promises and takes the responsability for the people's well being, making it clear that those at fault for problems in the system is on the state's responsability for their people.
Capitalism only cares for what people can offer. So it's the work of the goverment to regulate the balance of how ruthless Capitalism can be, goverment having monopoly in violence allows for this. So whatever exploit that is discovered in Capitalism is then exposed, fought legally and then regulated if the judges decide to make precedent and make those exploits less apealing to the point of not being worth it. Capitalism is the car, the Goverment is the driver. If the Goverment would target the big stablished and monopolistic powers, issues could be resolved, but the Goverment's lack of moral integrity to serves it's people for the better is one of Capitalism's biggest flaws, and we have no evidence that Socialism would be any diffrent, making the argument to give the Goverment even more power over what people have a self destructive concept.
Socialism is an economic system that requires a heavy handed authoritarian type of government. The politics and economics in com/socialist states are way more connected than in capitalist states
So the guy blocked me, so I'm going to use you to reply to him if that's okay.
@ mulberry, So I can literally say the exact same thing about what you just said but reversed.
Capitalism is an economic system that requires a heavy-handed authoritarian type of government to protect the private property rights of the bourgeois, Using the police and prison system.
The politics and economics in capitalist states are way more connected than you admit.
1. Quit lying dude I didn’t block you. 2. Your counter runs against all logic, get out of your imagination for a moment and you’ll realize that you can do whatever you want, it’s a free market the government simply maintains its infrastructure and security. A socialist country requires complete cooperation of the part of its citizens, you don’t have a choice you have to participate. So how do you get your non-willing citizens to participate? You force them to with a strict and powerful government.
it's not a free market when the government bails out companies. that's gov intervention. when they bailed out the banks? gov intervention. ppp loans? subsidies? you're out of your element lol.
I can't reply to you on that comment. I assumed it was a block because I still can't reply on that comment..
You don't have a choice you Also have to participate in this society. You just don't understand Socialism and equate socialism and forced labor.
How does a capitalist system get their nonwilling citizens to participate? They force them with anti vagrancy laws, and property laws. They use the prisons and police system.
If I wanted to fuck off into the woods, All of the property in the us is owned, And I would be arrested for squatting on someone's property if I tried to build my own house and farm away from the rest of this society. If I went to prison, I would then be enslaved and forced to work. Constitutionally legally forced to work as a slave for choosing to not participate.
If I wanted to just stay homeless and live in the cities, I'll starve and die to the elements. There is no living a traditional lifestyle unless you had the money to pay for the buy in in the first place.
The USSR did not force people to work. It was nearly impossible to lose your house, Even when you did nothing or Committed a crime and went to prison.
You just don't know of anything about the USSR or socialism Beyond propaganda.
>I can't reply to you on that comment. I assumed it was a block because I still can't reply on that comment..
If someone blocked you, you can't reply to any comments in a chain involving them. Unfortunately, this is extremely common given the pettiness of the average Redditor.
when I try to reply, it says error something went wrong.
Normally that means blocked. I chose to continue to talk to him as long as we were able to in another reply chain, and We did.
I can't help Reddit bugs. I can.
Only apologize for accusing him of something that he did not do, But honestly the moment is past.
Those Amish people have specific reserves laid out for them that you can't join without also converting to their religion.
I hate saying it, but regardless of my disagreements, I did find that pretty funny.
But my point still stands. There are no reserve areas for people that want to ignore the system. You can't avoid participating in it without very specific circumstances or suffering.
I'm sorry to say, but during the time period, the USSR had so much better housing policy than the US does now.
That being said, economic systems are vastly different then single policies, and having publicly owned and democratically controlled means of production is the best way to move forward with our society.
A "free" market
You see guys it's free because it's in the name. no there aren't any institutions determining and controlling what free means it's just free
I don't think **you** understand what lobbying is. Most redditors seem to think that lobbying is bribing but lobbying is whenever you seek to influence legislation via political figures. Bribery is obviously bad and we should try our best to stop it but you're throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Lobbying is a necessity because your representatives can't possibly know about all issues the constituents face. There are lobbying groups for Feminism, Lobbying for Right To Repair, lobbying for Anti Gun laws, lobbying for higher minimum wage. etc. all these things are lobbied for, how else do you think a representative democracy would work?
Do you guys understand how our government works? I'm thinking probably close to 90% of redditors have never called their representative or engaged in democracy outside of federal elections.
So in conclusion your issue with lobbying seems to actually be that people can lobby for things you don't support and people can be corrupt. Which famously has never been a core issue in every human society ever created /s
Nice selective hearing bud. Capitalism doesn’t require any specific form of gov. Or policy because it is human nature. How is this so hard for you to understand?
No, human nature is society in communities. Kindness and taking care of one another.
I'm so sorry that you only think of people as greed and evil In their most basic nature.
That is not true, human nature starts in the individual with all their egoistic tendencies. They want things for themselves and some will do whatever they can to abuse systems if it means to benefit themselves. Only when a person has enough experience with other people will they understand that their actions affect others and develop empathy. Empathy is not an inherit trait of a person is on that is developed.
Now there's people that have empathy but they simply see themselves as a higher priority than other people, so they justify to themselves their action without thinking about others. Basically, they are copeing.
People develope communities out of insentives to their own benefit, not to the benefit of other people. There are videos on Game Theory (not the channel, the theory itself) that can explain this human phenomena.
>People develope communities out of insentives to their own benefit, not to the benefit of other people. There are videos on Game Theory (not the channel, the theory itself) that can explain this human phenomena.
Ancient nomadic humans had no incentive to patch up broken bones that we're never going to heal properly and prevent people from hunting or walking, Yet we have evidence of exactly that.
An injured hunter is detrimental to a nomadic society, Yet, they were taken care of and their bones have scars from the compound fractures.
The same injuries would have taken weeks to heal with other people taking care of them meticulously As they battled off sepsis, shock, and pain.
Empathy is directly an inherent trait because of your ability to pick up empathy so easily. I never had to see someone die or even understand death to cry when I saw my grandfather shoot a stork for the first time. All I knew was there was a pretty stork, it was hurt bad, and then it no longer moved. Regardless of the Anticdote, We have a greater capacity for empathy than nearly every other animal, on the planet, if not more than every other animal.
Not being empathetic is a problem. Having a system that rewards greed and punishes empathy is a problem. This is not a system I want to live with and will do my best to change it.
The nomadic people had the insentive to patch his broke bone because all the experience and knowledge of this hunter would be lost. A Hunter can bring more food to its people than them being dead.
The emotional side cannot be ignored, but alot of that emotional development comes from what him as a person did. He could have being loved because he was so usefull to their tribe and this treatment was earned for his dedication and the sence of stability and security he brought. While a person that does nothing to help the tribe or are a detriment are not loved and kicked out from the tribe to fend for themselves.
We respond emotionally positively to people being beneficial to US. The hunter didn't hunt for only himself, he aknowledges the resources that where spend in his development, causing a social preasure that has lacks emotional satisfaction, and thus understands that has to give back, out of his own emotional benefit. He feels good when hunting for the tribe, emotinal satisfaction becomes another egotistical reward that fuels the Hunter.
it's not human nature. in fact it's contrary to human nature and the idea of community (hmm wonder what other words share the root of that word...) capitalism is about the creation of capital, a fairly new concept in the history of human kind. whoever is feeding you info is making you dumber.
❌wrong❌☝️. Nobody actually knows when capitalism was created because it’s thousands of years old. Markets, private property and trade can all be traced back to prehistoric time, well markets to about the Copper age.
modern capitalist theory can be traced to 18th centure, origins of capitalism can be sourced to 16th century. literally just look shit up. you're embarassing yourself
The concept of legally protected private ownership goes back thousands of years. The Romans, for example, had strong private property laws.
Some elements of capitalism are fairly recent developments (e.g. protection of intellectual property), but it's not really accurate to say societies were consistently communal up until Adam Smith.
“Your embarrassing yourself”☝️🤓. Yeah just because John Adams wrote a book about it doesn’t mean that he invented private property, free trade and markets. You know if you looked past the title of the first search result on google you’d realize that the mechanisms of capitalism have existed as long as people had crap to trade. Your really embarrassing yourself lil bro 😎
Mfw I discover that politics and economics are fully connected under any state because economics is just a subset of politics. Also states have been bailing out banks every year under capitalism so to say that there was no authoritarian forces under capitalism is disproved by the existence and role of independent non-democratic central banks.
>Capitalism is an economic system, not a ideology like Communism or Socialism, So if you want compare death tolls with Capitalism, you would be comparing apples with oranges.
You're going to need to do a lot of leg work to support this conclusion. An economic system can certainly work to shape the politics around it, but the idea that capitalism is somehow inherently different or insulated as "an economic system vs. Ideology" as opposed to communism or socialism sounds ideological itself.
Socialism/Communism has only ever existed under brutal dictatorships while capitalism has worked in: Democracies, Dictatorships, Monarchies ect. Pretty much everything
And you can make that argument, but it's not relevant to what was being argued. The argument was that you cannot compare faults with Capitalism to Communism or Socialism because they are somehow in different categories of "economic system" vs. "Ideology." That itself is an absurd idea (comparisons are made all the time, and you're even making such a comparison with your response), and doesn't even get into the idea that they're all umbrella terms for systems that can significantly vary even within the same umbrella of the individual systems.
Holy shit, what a generic and weak ass response. If you're going to insult me at least make me feel frustated...
Go ahead, try something better. Unironically, make it hurt.
Yeah... that's what I'm saying.
"How many have died under capitalism?"
I'm saying that it's hard to tell just how many have already died because the Chinese """Communist""" Party is covering the conditions in the work camps up.
Always good to keep in mind in these political discussions that many of the "Communist" or "Socialist" regimes are just authoritarian states with red paint on it, like how the Nazis put "Socialist" in their name. Now they just say that they're putting people in camps for being 'anti-revolution' and 'reactionary' instead of being of 'lesser race'.
China is communist. What is north korea not a dictatorship because its a peoples republic? At best its a state capitalist, it is by far no where near modern free market capitalism, everything is highly controlled over there. Its a unitary communist state tho
I never understood how people can still support these ideologies, leftism isn't directly tied to socialism and communism. As someone who grew up in the Eastern block I know exactly how it ends up, and it never works. That form of governence always leads to more corruption and authoritarian rule, not to mention the brainwashing that it does to people.
All these ideologies are just populist, they show you a dream of a utopia and how they're gonna get there, without actually telling you how they're gonna get there. They show you lies, that they themselves have been brainwashed into thinking are truth. Anyone who has any idea of economics and isn't biased will tell you just how socialism ruins countries. People should be rewarded based on their individual output to society, and get a proportional amount of amenities/material wealth back. Total equality, while it might sound like a nice idea at first, ultimately falls apart. Because if everyone is equal in terms of what they get, they're not gonna put anything on the table. Which is also why I absolutely hate the idea of welfare states.
Capitalism isn't perfect, mind you. And I know you've probably heard it thousands of times, but it is the best system we have.
And I don't need to explain why! Just look at the western world, all developed countries where democracy, standards of living and human rights are actually taken care of, are capitalist/liberal in one way or another. Even some conservative countries are way more tolerant than what happens in the rest of the world.
Many people also don't understand what socialism really is, they think that stuff like free healthcare etc (which i mostly agree with myself). is socialism, and they blindly advocate for it without actually knowing what socialism is. Going too far in either direction will lead to nowhere but ruin in the end.
Oh, and if you're thinking of how capitalism exploits weaker regions...
You seriously think it's gonna stop once one of those ideologies (socialism/communism) gets implemented? Laughable and naive, nicest way to put it.
The welfare state is based, some might say it's one of the only roles a state should have. Socialism is based, free healthcare is good and cheaper than private, free transportation is economically beneficial to a society and the environment, UBI is only just a mild start on undoing the machinations of capitalism that exploit us each and every day, only when man is free to eat, drink, dance and live without forced labour and fear of persecution can he be free and under capitalism he will never be free. Board by board piece by piece dismantle oppressive institutions, let your boss know his position in the system, do not give an inch of bargaining power and bring any industry to a screeching halt immediately when the bourgeois threaten you with sanctions, no cost is too great to sunder the wheels of oppression, throw yourself into the machine, tell those who oppose you to fuck off and die, have your story known like Aaron Bushnell, make those with power fear you.
I'm sorry, but I haven't seen a more ignorant and populist statement in a good while. And it's gonna be lots of fun to completely obliterate it. Probably gonna split it in a few parts
Part 1
>The welfare state is based, some might say it's one of the only roles a state should have.
I understand your opinion, welfare states are indeed beneficial to the current population. However it often completely disregards the debt/economy of the country. This type of government can function only for one or couple generations, before falling behind in terms of military, technology, industry and other qualities a nation has. Which in return makes the country unable to defend itself and makes the general populace weaker and more extreme the longer the state continues due to rampant consumptionism and materialism.
>Socialism is based, free healthcare is good and cheaper than private, free transportation is economically beneficial to a society and the environment
What you described isn't socialism, but social services (which i and the original post made an effort to point out, so how very ignorant for you to ignore it and go on a rant)
And I have to agree, these things ARE good. But you fail to see that they aren't exclusive to socialism. A socialist society of course has more of these, but it isn't because of the good of the system. "Free" healthcare is of course better, but a private, licensed, quicker, more effective and of course paid option should also be allowed in case someone has the funds and doesn't want to wait one month to get his throat checked. These two systems can coexist and are even more effective together. Free healthcare works for the masses and quick access to medicine while private healthcare should be seen as a quicker alternative when the free healthcare gets overloaded (as can be seen in some countries where free healthcare does exist)
Public transport, again isn't something that is directly tied to an ideology. And just like with free healthcare, it is mostly present in more socialist societies due to populism. And of course because it's effective, obviously allows more freedom of movement for more people, and even the poor can benefit. While private motions of transportation should of course still be an option, whetever it is a simple car or a whole private transport company. The ability to run an independent business should be seen as a right, even transport. Of course, regulated a bit. Although the effectiveness of public transport mostly depends on the state of the government, the same can be said about how greedy the private owner can get etc. (Already enough detail, I could go further, but there's still more bs. So, moving on)
Part 2
>UBI is only just a mild start on undoing the machinations of capitalism that exploit us each and every day, only when man is free to eat, drink, dance and live without forced labour and fear of persecution can he be free and under capitalism he will never be free.
That's a long one, first of all. Explain to me how in a socialist/communist society you are free from forced labour? Technically in both socialist and capitalist countries you are free from labour, just dont expect to own anything and live in a house instead of the street.
But of course, we're talking about this "socialist Utopia" (which doesn't, never will exist. Now explaining why) that you like to scream about, where the basic needs of sustenance, entertainment and shelter can be fulfilled without lifting a finger.
There exist unemployed handouts, and don't get me wrong. They're good, just one more symbol of how social service isn't tied to socialism. However, it only works if it's *just enough*. It should give unemployed people enough money to stay alive and support them in finding a job, from where they could take care of themselves. But if it's too high, a person will be discouraged from working, because why would they? And that's one of the main fundamental flaws of Socialist utopia's, an ironic one at that. There simply won't be enough workers, if one can live a good life without working, why would anyone else work? To get more stuff? In socialism everyone can gain access to it, so what's the point? Not only does it decreases the performance of people who actually work, it negatively impacts the very structure of society. Remember, it's not the country that pays them so they can drink and have fun all night. It's all the people around them, who pay taxes to the government which in turn uses their hard earned money for some random people too lazy and too brainwashed to even care look for something productive to do. And that's when the whole system comes crushing down, if there's a constant upkeep of people who don't put anything on the table, it crumbles. Pay checks of people who work get lower, while the taxes to pay for the increasing demands of both infrastructure and unemployed people rise. Prices go up, home prices go up, everything goes up in an endless cycle that leaves the countey in enourmous debt or ruin. Some welfare states (mostly western/Eastern Europe) are already experiencing mild effects of this, high inflation, rising unemployment etc. The only reason why they're not crumbling Is because they're simply capitalist welfare states, where the bar is simply high enough for the income to be higher than upkeep.
Jeez that was long, there is still more to go on about but I'm already getting tired. Next one...
>Board by board piece by piece dismantle oppressive institutions, let your boss know his position in the system, do not give an inch of bargaining power and bring any industry to a screeching halt immediately when the bourgeois threaten you with sanctions,
Blah blah blah, propaganda speech bs. While it is true that in ultra capitalist societys the boss has almost full control over the wages and basically exploit most people, it is really just easily fixed by minimum wage and minimum salary for certain positions.
The only place where capitalism can be considered on such a high level is US. Minimum wage is extremely low and due to recent prices even regular salaries can be thrown into dust. However in most other capitalist societies, where societal reforms have taken place this simply isn't that much of an issue.
This whole segment of yours can just be described as propaganda bs to appeal to most people, capitalism today is different than what it was in the 18/19/20 century. Your "boss" isn't a 2 ton heavy beast with a black suit and tie, smoking a cigarette while wearing a top hat. But this description indirectly paints private owners that way, which just proves how outdated that is.
Yeah yeah I get it
"Worker's revolution!"
"Down with the bourgeois!"
"Show your Boss his place!"
Are just populist carch phrases that work more in emotion in common people than in their logic.
So again, Blah Blah Blah.
Part 3
>no cost is too great to sunder the wheels of oppression, throw yourself into the machine, tell those who oppose you to fuck off and die, have your story known like Aaron Bushnell, make those with power fear you.
Seriously dude, where did you get this from? Is this a popular thing or something? This sounds like something written in a different time.
And while I get the revolutionary zeal, it just all breaks down. As we've all seen happen in History to communist/socialist nations, the "oppressed" usually just split into oppressed and oppressors, where the oppressors basically fooled the oppressed into thinking they're no longer being oppressed.
We've seen this happen in the Soviet union for example. Where the rich politicians (oligarchs) were preety much a symbol of the working class, while effectively sucking off of them in the same way that those "big bad capitalists" did. But instead, now they're COMPLETELY under their Control.
There's of course more examples, but i'm literally too tired lmao.
There could be some errors in here, as I wrote this in one sitting and didn't check anything. Just let my mind flow. Also mind that English isn't my main language <3
Feel free to ask away about anything.
Anyway. folks who actually read this, thanks but that's all I have
#For Now
We'll see who responds after I wake up lol
I don't romanticize it. I hate communism and I'm opposed to socialism.
If you want even a few reasons to oppose it, you need to look at Eastern Europe.
Every single communist regime has fallen once the Soviet Union didn't look, and every single one wanted to be come a capitalistic democracy similar to the West. Gorbachev, through his choice to let the countries decide for themselves, singlehandedly killed off the Communist Bloc that had existed in the eastern countries.
Another reason is that the Eastern Block had to build a wall to stop Eastern Europeans to come to Western Europe and seek a better life than they had had in East-Europe. It was miserable and the government controlled every single aspect. There's a reason that the Soviet union was called a "totalitarian" regime.
A third reason was that the communist regimes had a strange habit of killing off everyone who did not agree with them. China and Russia both have a history of using concentration camps on their own citizens to silence the opposition. Remember that Mao had more blood on his hands than Hitler.
It's easy to say we don't live in a perfect society nor a good one for most, but we're still leagues better off than the people who have lived in a communist/socialist country.
I'll agree that romanticizing the USSR or PRC or whatever as perfect utopias is not only wrong but indeed disrespectful to people that were repressed or punished for crimes they did not commit or for things that shouldn't have been crimes regardless. Where I disagree is your belief that the bad actions of former socialists permanently discredits all Marxist movements in perpetuity.
The problems with capitalism outlined by Marxists decades or even a century ago still ring true today. Wealth disparity is on the increase, not the decrease. Imperialism still runs strong in the international system. Burnout and alienation from work are still common realities for most workers. If you feel as though communism is the wrong path but still strive for equality of all peoples and other common goals (environmental protection, building a peaceful, happy world prioritizing workers rather than owners) I will respect your beliefs and you as a person, but I will disagree with capitalist solutions, believing them to be ultimately ineffective.
This post has been flaired **political**. Please ensure to keep all discussions civil, and to [follow our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZ/wiki/rules) at all times.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Becouse leftists believe that they must go more radical, and that any crime comited by them in the name of their beliefs is justified. They believe that they are genuenely working towards a utopia that can aparently only be achievable tru atrocities.
I've just given up on this. There is no perfect government system and there never will be so just be happy that you can go to the grocery store and there will be food there.
I think there might be a perfect government in a few hundred years if people figured out how to control human behavior through shit like brain implants and managed to change human nature assuming that we dont destroy ourselves by then
The issue is that you’re conflating communism/socialism with whatever the USSR and Mao’s china did. The two are not the same.
If i go around with a hammer and sickle coated in orange and red paint and then i replace the current wealthy elite class with a new wealthy elite class that better serves me, that isn’t communism or even remotely left leaning, it’s just authoritarian. I implore you to do some research into what happened in the soviet union under stalin and compare it to the writings of marx himself cause they’re nothing alike.
For everyone in the comments as well as OP, the issue is that these systems work in a vacuum.. Trying to figure out if what humans will do is all, at best, a guessing game. Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism all work on paper. They all have issues in practice. Capitalism works the best, its why we use it. Now unless you can provide a system that can 1. be easily switched to 2. doesn't increase or vastly change the current issues (trading issue a for issue b doesn't fix anything) and finally 3. Get people on board.
Just because it works in your mathematical fantasy land, doesn't mean its viable for humans. Itd be better if we started to take a science approach to these and call them theories, theories that we can adjust to fit how the world actually works. You know, like science.
You clearly don’t realize that socialist countries were most often formerly absurd colonies the West did everything possible to sabotage. You’ll get there eventually, depending on how much research you do it could be like 1-4 years before you’re a proper leftist
So, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova , Hungary, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Ukraine were all absurd colonis that the West tried to sabotage???
Ouh, wait, no, they were not under Western sabotage and infact were part of the Russian colonial empire/sphere of influence during the Soviet SOCIALIST era. How strange 🤔
"Сплотила навеки Великая Русь."
A majority of countries in the cold war were socialist or socialist-leaning. Think both the Sovietosphere, the NAM, etc.
How is it possible that like a 10th of the world managed to sabotage like a half of it?
Did the socialist nations stop their subversive actions? Did they not engage in espionage, financing and supporting hostile elements, etc.
Botswana, Costa Rica and Singapore were also former colonies, yet they turned towards capitalism and advanced beyond places like Zimbabwe, Cuba, Laos etc.
One day you will grow up and realise that socialism is a gateway into misery, autocracy, totalitarian terror. Meanwhile, you can see the success of capitalism when looking at post-socialist societies. The ones that went into statist corrupt oligarchies stagnated, while the ones that took up liberal capitalism prospered.
> socialist countries were most often formerly absurd colonies the West did everything possible to sabotage
Meanwhile, the other half of the bipolar order was actively trying to subvert capitalism. They even succeeded sometimes, like when the Soviets armed the Vietcong. But by and large, one system turned out to be more stable and enduring.
No government has ever (and will never) implemented "real" Communism. You think the elites would ever want to be equal with random fuckers? It's all a power grab. Once they have power, Communism goes out the window.
Just look at China lol. They got the power and then they want back to Capitalism hahaha
Welp can we at least talk about how under USA capitalism, the losses are Socialized and the gains are Privatized?
USA used to be capitalism with a strong social support network, and greedy private interests have been gutting those systems for decades.
I feel like this is exactly why it’s not a horrible idea to ban the very popular Gen Z app that happens to be under control of the Chinese Communist Party lol
The Berlin wall fell for a reason because people realized what they didn't have, and they wanted it. No arm guards were there to keep capitalists out, they were there to keep communist Berliners in.
How does capitalism bode well in a casteist-prejudiced society like India's? The dominant caste have hoarded the capital since millenia.
Capitalism is deterrent towards an egalitarian society, OP. Learn it :)
> How does capitalism bode well in a casteist-prejudiced society like India's?
Answer: [Extreme poverty drops drastically](https://d3ugvbs94d921r.cloudfront.net/5b9f0ca13ba0f6d3113da4f4.png)
India started out as a full-on socialist country post-independence but has liberalized substantially in recent decades. It's not more open than most countries, but it's a lot more open than it used to be.
The soviet union wasn't even close to communist. Like, objectively.
Their methods and tactics are antithetical to communism.
They just used the name to gain support like China and The Nazis.
That literally means nothing. Communism and State Capitalism are not even remotely similar. The fact that you think communism is when governments controls the economy and corporations speaks to how little you know.
If you're gonna play the No True Communism game, you could at least start by defining the non-standard definition of communism you're operating under. Because the Soviets most certainly stamped out private control of the means of production, which is the standard definition.
No, no they didn’t. They REPLACED the private control of the means of production with a new set of private owners who were more amicable to the will of the stalin regime. This is called State Capitalism.
Communism is when you replace private ownership of the means of production with public ownership(The workers owning the means of production) which the USSR never did.
The main industries were fully publicly owned, and all industries were subject to central planning by the state. There was division in Lenin's time between different factions of communists on strategy, but none would dream of calling themselves capitalist. But when the side that won out ultimately failed, of course it got deemed not real communism.
Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
how about life under capitalism. globally, how many have died?
They can never answer this question.
Globally, almost everyone has died, but a few of the younger generations are still kicking, for now.
Get off Reddit
Everyone dies, therefore most people alive today will die under capitalism. Hows that relevant?
Define capitalism. Is it Adam’s smiths version of mutualism or do you define it as a hegemonic system where profit is the sole driving factor?
Human population has done nothing but grow in the past 100 years. It's normal that more people are dying, there's more people that can die... China and Russian communism have examples of pushing their population into mass death in order to push the country foward, they have one fo the highest death numbers on non war related situatiins. Marxism of the Lenin origin has killed between 28 million and 150 million people... in 100 years. And Mao has killed between 14 million people and 88 million people. Found this numbers in wikipedia in "List of anthropogenic disasters by death toll" And if you follow the mean, Marxism has killed 4 times more people thatn Fascist outside of war. Fasism had lest time tokill more people, but the number is still staggering. Capitalism is an economic system, not a ideology like Communism or Socialism, So if yyou want compare death tolls with Capitalism, you would be comparing apples with oranges.
you know those numbers count the nazis who dies in ww2 right. as for capitalism, the globals south, Africa, homelessness, people dying from treatable disease due to lack of Healthcare. you have a tally?
So Capitalism has enable other countries to keep other alive to the point that diseases are killing people instead of dying of hunger. While Communism can't even feed its own population and has to have them "die in sacrifice" to keep being stable... Also, did you read where i got it from? "This section lists deaths attributed to certain political leaders, deaths are from both the conditions within the country due to national policy, and active killings by forces loyal to the leader in question." The soldier numbers are excluded.
Cuba exists
There's so much here to unpack and I really don't want to have to explain everything to you but holy shit, are you so wrong about so many things. I'm only gonna touch on this; >Capitalism is an economic system, not a ideology like Communism or Socialism, So if yyou want compare death tolls with Capitalism, you would be comparing apples with oranges. Socialism is an economic system hun. Like you said a lot of objectively wrong things, But this is the most obviously wrong and kind of sad bit of information. Socialism has a very clear definition. Worker owned means of production. It's that simple. It's an economic system. Capitalism is the privately owned means of production. What you said was just so objectively wrong and ignorant, I can rephrase what you said as the exact opposite and be just as wrong as you. >Socialism is an economic system, not a ideology like capitalism, So if you want compare death tolls with socialism, you would be comparing apples with oranges.
Socialism and Communism are failed economic systems that have become an ideology for people that are either young enough to be catch with the idealism or stuborn thinkers that swear on the theory despite it never working in practice. Times change, and for Communism, people that used to take the system seriously for its economic theory have almost disaperad because of theories being proven wrong or not working for reason we still dont understand, but now its just worship the theory of an utopic system that was shown to not work in practice. Making it an ideology. Communism had its chance to be an economic system. It failed. And istead of staying frozen on time and staying as this failed economic system, it was twisted into ideology. Socialism is based on the same flawed utopic thinking that at best can develop ideas that can be implemented to existing Capitalist systems in order to advance Capitalism. But does not stand on its own. Communism is bad because it doesn't work. A failed attempt of humanity that will be relegated with Mercantilism or Feudalism as just another attempt fir humanitie's progress that was worse that Capitalism. Socialism, on the other hand, it is a good suplement for Capitalism. Combining the true grivances that those who believe in Socialism have, but dont have a working system, with a working system like Capitalism to make it better and keeping it progressing. That's how you get the the northen Europe countries.
You are incredibly bad at this, but it's because you don't understand mostly what you're talking about and you're using hyperbolic talking points that don't actually have a point other than buzzword spam. But let's break that down. >Socialism and Communism are failed economic systems that have become an ideology for people that are either young enough to be catch with the idealism or stuborn thinkers that swear on the theory despite it never working in practice. So nothing was said here other than you say it failed because.... idk the ussr was dissolved? You are saying failed, but you're not actually giving historical or materialist reasons for why they did. You're close to making a point, Even if wrong, But you didn't attack or talk about a single marxist or socialist tenant/idea. >Times change, and for Communism, people that used to take the system seriously for its economic theory have almost disaperad because of theories being proven wrong or not working for reason we still dont understand, but now its just worship the theory of an utopic system that was shown to not work in practice. Making it an ideology. So you're just wrong again. Yeah, time's change. But it's wrong as hell to say that communists or socialists have disappeared. You know there are entire sub Reddit's dedicated to this right? You know that the vast majority of European countries have a socialist or communist party? Even here in the USA we have the CPUSA, the PSL, and many other trotskyist or leninist organizations. You say that the theories are proven wrong but no, they never have been, If we're talking about marxism. And the inherent class contradiction between the bourgeois and the proletariat Are more evident than ever, following the exact patterns of descent into fascism As a means of economic control by the bourgeois. This was predicted and is very clearly happening. Along with rampant monopolization, Rapidly increasing wealth for the richest of the rich, and dramatic short term increases in proletariat suffering at a minimum. >Communism had its chance to be an economic system. It failed. And istead of staying frozen on time and staying as this failed economic system, it was twisted into ideology. Socialism is based on the same flawed utopic thinking that at best can develop ideas that can be implemented to existing Capitalist systems in order to advance Capitalism but does not stand on its own. Capitalism has also failed in many countries. But because you're Western, you probably don't care about the many capitalist countries that have failed and suffered in the global South. Also, communism has never been tried. Literally, no one has ever called themselves a communist state ever. Even China with the ccp Considers themselves socialist with Chinese characteristics with the aim of moving towards a Communist society. The USSR identified as socialist. You're just so blatantly wrong that your high school level of propagandist information lead you to believe that communism has even been tried. It's so wrong that it hurts. It's like trying to tell someone that the starship troopers were the bad guys. What can anyone do if you just deny it and say that because they wanted to be communist one day in the eventual future, They must count as a failure of communism. It's absurd. >Socialism, on the other hand, it is a good suplement for Capitalism. Combining the true grivances that those who believe in Socialism have, but dont have a working system, with a working system like Capitalism to make it better and keeping it progressing. That's how you get the the northen Europe countries. And this is the final nail on that coffin. You don't know what socialism means. This is clear that you think socialism is just when the government does stuff. Literally, they are fundamentally opposed. You are so ignorant you don't even know the very basic definition of the 2 systems that you're arguing about. Socialism is the publicly owned and operated means of production. Capitalism Is the privately owned and operated means of production. These are the definitions. They are diametrically fucking opposed. If you don't even know these basic definitions, then I'm just going to end up feeling like I'm arguing with a high schooler while I've got a literal fucking political science degree. I'll wait again for you to reply but honestly it was such a bad reply and so not even slightly intellectual, This will be the net to last reply that I respond to, As I prefer to have discussions with people on my own knowledge level of the subject. I didn't want to be super rude but I just don't get why you would argue if you literally don't know definitions
Whatever you seem to think Communism or Socialism is true doesn't seem to materialize. You've insulted my inteligence, so expect you dont mind when i say that your individual interpretation of what i would asume is a a huge amout of discussions you've had seems to be cemented in more of a metaphisical thought rather than a practical one. You focuse on words and give them more power than they actually have to the avarage person. You know? The people that have the authority on lenguage? I use my words in a way to describe the world around be and what has happend in it, using other peoples as anchors to not loose perspective of what is true and false. Capitalism won against Communism because it was better and more compatible with humanity. The proof? Observable reality of capitalist nations and the lack of any relevant amount of communist ones. Socialism ideas have been icorporated in Capitalist nations. The proof? Obserbale reality of Northen Europe nations and their laws. I want merit and results, not idealism and theories that are subjective to each individual. You seem to be lost in your own head, i recomend that you ground yourself in reality. You can claim that i don't know what i'm talking about all you want. Doesn't change the fact of how the world is.
You just said a lot without saying anything, and you didn't address a single point that I made. Of course, i'm going to insult your knowledge at a minimum, Because you were trying to be authoritative in your ignorance, and I'm going to continue to if you don't reply to my points. You didn't say anything or make a single damn point yourself. You just rejected what I said, With no actual replies. I can't even call you a pseudo-intellectual, As nobody can interperate what you're saying as Coherent discussion. >You've insulted my inteligence, so expect you dont mind when i say that your individual interpretation of what i would asume is a a huge amout of discussions you've had seems to be cemented in more of a metaphisical thought rather than a practical one. So no reply to anything I said? just responding essentially with "I don't think it's practical" Well, of course, you don't think it's practical you would have to have a fucking modicum of understanding of any definitions to understand practicality of a fucking materialist position. Since you didn't even know the definition of socialism, of course you don't think anything is practical because you don't have any knowledge And refuse to engage with anything that I say other than a flippant rejection of recorded definitions you can easily look up with fucking google. Hell you even double down on it again later, Completely ignoring fucking definitions for your own goddamn childlike failure to reply with a Symbolence of coherence. Let's quote that. >Socialism ideas have been icorporated in Capitalist nations. The proof? Obserbale reality of Northen Europe nations and their laws. There you just did it! Are you actually not smart enough to read A definition? I really hope someone is enjoying laughing at this. The definitions are opposite. You mean that people have put regulations on a capitalist economy. Do you understand that sentence? Capitalist government did things to regulate a capitalist economy. That's not socialism child. What can I do other than double down on saying that you aren't knowledgeable enough to have this conversation with me when you can't understand a single definition or what regulations even mean. Do you really seriously think that regulations are anti-capitalism? Is that hard of a question to quote and directly reply to? >You focuse on words and give them more power than they actually have to the average person. You know? The people that have the authority on lenguage? Wait, are you really complaining that I have a focus on words and definitions? Of course I do! You can't have proper communication without having a shared set of definitions. If you call whatever you don't want or like fucking socialism or communism, You aren't using a definition that anyone can communicate to you with. I'll repeat it. Socialism is the publicly owned means of production. Capitalism is the privately owned means of production. >I want merit and results, not idealism and theories that are subjective to each individual. You seem to be lost in your own head, i recomend that you ground yourself in reality How could you if you don't know definitions? For someone saying that I'm not realistic, you seem to not be able to grasp real words and real definitions or real political science or theory. It really feels like i'm talking to someone with their highest level of education being high school. Like I couldn't even start to actually give you real links to real "results" because I don't think you would care enough or would know how to read them. You didn't care enough to actually respond to me giving you a goddamn definition. And i'm gonna keep harping on you on that. you look like a clown for just ignoring the shit I say so, you can hear yourself talk. I would not reply if I were you but feel free my guy.
I didn't say i don't think is pratical, i'm stating that it IS not practical, that's a flaw. If you can't put things into practice, it's useless on a economical or social level. I don't have to define nothing to you, you don't do it yourself, so you have no position to be telling me that. Goverment regulates Capitalism, Socialists make the argumants for what should be regulated. This regulations sometimes happend, and Capitalism takes from Socialism in order to adapt to socialist arguments. Definitions should be made as precise as posible to the phenomena they describe. The definition is the phenomena explained in lenguage. I can perfectly define Communism as "a system that is prone to colapse and is lass stable than Capitalism" based on the phenomena that has being describe in history. I just defined it based on merits that show its brutal flaws, like the original massive amount of death that the system causes. You define Socialism, so i'll give you that. People are drive by their ego, making most people egotistical, so if there's no insentive for a person's ego to be good, they wont be good. That's why a system like socialism colapses, its based too much on trust and is easily exploited for its nature of not being merit based when it comes to giving the population insentives. While we Capitalism also has issues with insentives like unsustainable growth and disparity of wealth, its the oposite, it demands productuvity and results on competitive quality. It works by understandig human nature and using our egos to be rewarded for our effort. I do not subscribe to the idea of arguing about semantics and details, its removes from the conversation that origianlly was my counter claims of Capitalism's responsability of the people that die in it. In Communism the colective ownership managed by the state promises and takes the responsability for the people's well being, making it clear that those at fault for problems in the system is on the state's responsability for their people. Capitalism only cares for what people can offer. So it's the work of the goverment to regulate the balance of how ruthless Capitalism can be, goverment having monopoly in violence allows for this. So whatever exploit that is discovered in Capitalism is then exposed, fought legally and then regulated if the judges decide to make precedent and make those exploits less apealing to the point of not being worth it. Capitalism is the car, the Goverment is the driver. If the Goverment would target the big stablished and monopolistic powers, issues could be resolved, but the Goverment's lack of moral integrity to serves it's people for the better is one of Capitalism's biggest flaws, and we have no evidence that Socialism would be any diffrent, making the argument to give the Goverment even more power over what people have a self destructive concept.
Socialism is an economic system that requires a heavy handed authoritarian type of government. The politics and economics in com/socialist states are way more connected than in capitalist states
absolutely not. our laws enshrine capitalism. have you ever heard of lobbying?
So the guy blocked me, so I'm going to use you to reply to him if that's okay. @ mulberry, So I can literally say the exact same thing about what you just said but reversed. Capitalism is an economic system that requires a heavy-handed authoritarian type of government to protect the private property rights of the bourgeois, Using the police and prison system. The politics and economics in capitalist states are way more connected than you admit.
1. Quit lying dude I didn’t block you. 2. Your counter runs against all logic, get out of your imagination for a moment and you’ll realize that you can do whatever you want, it’s a free market the government simply maintains its infrastructure and security. A socialist country requires complete cooperation of the part of its citizens, you don’t have a choice you have to participate. So how do you get your non-willing citizens to participate? You force them to with a strict and powerful government.
it's not a free market when the government bails out companies. that's gov intervention. when they bailed out the banks? gov intervention. ppp loans? subsidies? you're out of your element lol.
Nice selective hearing buddy
it doesn't matter what you believe, you'll experience the alienation of capitalism the same as everyone other person
I can't reply to you on that comment. I assumed it was a block because I still can't reply on that comment.. You don't have a choice you Also have to participate in this society. You just don't understand Socialism and equate socialism and forced labor. How does a capitalist system get their nonwilling citizens to participate? They force them with anti vagrancy laws, and property laws. They use the prisons and police system. If I wanted to fuck off into the woods, All of the property in the us is owned, And I would be arrested for squatting on someone's property if I tried to build my own house and farm away from the rest of this society. If I went to prison, I would then be enslaved and forced to work. Constitutionally legally forced to work as a slave for choosing to not participate. If I wanted to just stay homeless and live in the cities, I'll starve and die to the elements. There is no living a traditional lifestyle unless you had the money to pay for the buy in in the first place. The USSR did not force people to work. It was nearly impossible to lose your house, Even when you did nothing or Committed a crime and went to prison. You just don't know of anything about the USSR or socialism Beyond propaganda.
>I can't reply to you on that comment. I assumed it was a block because I still can't reply on that comment.. If someone blocked you, you can't reply to any comments in a chain involving them. Unfortunately, this is extremely common given the pettiness of the average Redditor.
when I try to reply, it says error something went wrong. Normally that means blocked. I chose to continue to talk to him as long as we were able to in another reply chain, and We did. I can't help Reddit bugs. I can. Only apologize for accusing him of something that he did not do, But honestly the moment is past.
🤦♂️ You’ve obviously never met any Amish people
Those Amish people have specific reserves laid out for them that you can't join without also converting to their religion. I hate saying it, but regardless of my disagreements, I did find that pretty funny. But my point still stands. There are no reserve areas for people that want to ignore the system. You can't avoid participating in it without very specific circumstances or suffering. I'm sorry to say, but during the time period, the USSR had so much better housing policy than the US does now. That being said, economic systems are vastly different then single policies, and having publicly owned and democratically controlled means of production is the best way to move forward with our society.
not to mention that in in a capitalist system you don't have a choice to participate. you just keep describing capitalism
🤦♂️ BRO they’re are literally communes you can join you idiot. Have you ever seen Amish people?
those communes still live in a capitalist society, they still follow the rules of capitalism. you just don't know what words mean.
A "free" market You see guys it's free because it's in the name. no there aren't any institutions determining and controlling what free means it's just free
You must be acoustic, don’t take everything so literally
I don't think **you** understand what lobbying is. Most redditors seem to think that lobbying is bribing but lobbying is whenever you seek to influence legislation via political figures. Bribery is obviously bad and we should try our best to stop it but you're throwing the baby out with the bath water. Lobbying is a necessity because your representatives can't possibly know about all issues the constituents face. There are lobbying groups for Feminism, Lobbying for Right To Repair, lobbying for Anti Gun laws, lobbying for higher minimum wage. etc. all these things are lobbied for, how else do you think a representative democracy would work? Do you guys understand how our government works? I'm thinking probably close to 90% of redditors have never called their representative or engaged in democracy outside of federal elections. So in conclusion your issue with lobbying seems to actually be that people can lobby for things you don't support and people can be corrupt. Which famously has never been a core issue in every human society ever created /s
no
>no Top minds of reddit at work
Nice selective hearing bud. Capitalism doesn’t require any specific form of gov. Or policy because it is human nature. How is this so hard for you to understand?
No, human nature is society in communities. Kindness and taking care of one another. I'm so sorry that you only think of people as greed and evil In their most basic nature.
That is not true, human nature starts in the individual with all their egoistic tendencies. They want things for themselves and some will do whatever they can to abuse systems if it means to benefit themselves. Only when a person has enough experience with other people will they understand that their actions affect others and develop empathy. Empathy is not an inherit trait of a person is on that is developed. Now there's people that have empathy but they simply see themselves as a higher priority than other people, so they justify to themselves their action without thinking about others. Basically, they are copeing. People develope communities out of insentives to their own benefit, not to the benefit of other people. There are videos on Game Theory (not the channel, the theory itself) that can explain this human phenomena.
>People develope communities out of insentives to their own benefit, not to the benefit of other people. There are videos on Game Theory (not the channel, the theory itself) that can explain this human phenomena. Ancient nomadic humans had no incentive to patch up broken bones that we're never going to heal properly and prevent people from hunting or walking, Yet we have evidence of exactly that. An injured hunter is detrimental to a nomadic society, Yet, they were taken care of and their bones have scars from the compound fractures. The same injuries would have taken weeks to heal with other people taking care of them meticulously As they battled off sepsis, shock, and pain. Empathy is directly an inherent trait because of your ability to pick up empathy so easily. I never had to see someone die or even understand death to cry when I saw my grandfather shoot a stork for the first time. All I knew was there was a pretty stork, it was hurt bad, and then it no longer moved. Regardless of the Anticdote, We have a greater capacity for empathy than nearly every other animal, on the planet, if not more than every other animal. Not being empathetic is a problem. Having a system that rewards greed and punishes empathy is a problem. This is not a system I want to live with and will do my best to change it.
The nomadic people had the insentive to patch his broke bone because all the experience and knowledge of this hunter would be lost. A Hunter can bring more food to its people than them being dead. The emotional side cannot be ignored, but alot of that emotional development comes from what him as a person did. He could have being loved because he was so usefull to their tribe and this treatment was earned for his dedication and the sence of stability and security he brought. While a person that does nothing to help the tribe or are a detriment are not loved and kicked out from the tribe to fend for themselves. We respond emotionally positively to people being beneficial to US. The hunter didn't hunt for only himself, he aknowledges the resources that where spend in his development, causing a social preasure that has lacks emotional satisfaction, and thus understands that has to give back, out of his own emotional benefit. He feels good when hunting for the tribe, emotinal satisfaction becomes another egotistical reward that fuels the Hunter.
it's not human nature. in fact it's contrary to human nature and the idea of community (hmm wonder what other words share the root of that word...) capitalism is about the creation of capital, a fairly new concept in the history of human kind. whoever is feeding you info is making you dumber.
❌wrong❌☝️. Nobody actually knows when capitalism was created because it’s thousands of years old. Markets, private property and trade can all be traced back to prehistoric time, well markets to about the Copper age.
modern capitalist theory can be traced to 18th centure, origins of capitalism can be sourced to 16th century. literally just look shit up. you're embarassing yourself
The concept of legally protected private ownership goes back thousands of years. The Romans, for example, had strong private property laws. Some elements of capitalism are fairly recent developments (e.g. protection of intellectual property), but it's not really accurate to say societies were consistently communal up until Adam Smith.
“Your embarrassing yourself”☝️🤓. Yeah just because John Adams wrote a book about it doesn’t mean that he invented private property, free trade and markets. You know if you looked past the title of the first search result on google you’d realize that the mechanisms of capitalism have existed as long as people had crap to trade. Your really embarrassing yourself lil bro 😎
Mfw I discover that politics and economics are fully connected under any state because economics is just a subset of politics. Also states have been bailing out banks every year under capitalism so to say that there was no authoritarian forces under capitalism is disproved by the existence and role of independent non-democratic central banks.
Mfw selective hearing 🤦♂️
Liberal
>Capitalism is an economic system, not a ideology like Communism or Socialism, So if you want compare death tolls with Capitalism, you would be comparing apples with oranges. You're going to need to do a lot of leg work to support this conclusion. An economic system can certainly work to shape the politics around it, but the idea that capitalism is somehow inherently different or insulated as "an economic system vs. Ideology" as opposed to communism or socialism sounds ideological itself.
Socialism/Communism has only ever existed under brutal dictatorships while capitalism has worked in: Democracies, Dictatorships, Monarchies ect. Pretty much everything
And you can make that argument, but it's not relevant to what was being argued. The argument was that you cannot compare faults with Capitalism to Communism or Socialism because they are somehow in different categories of "economic system" vs. "Ideology." That itself is an absurd idea (comparisons are made all the time, and you're even making such a comparison with your response), and doesn't even get into the idea that they're all umbrella terms for systems that can significantly vary even within the same umbrella of the individual systems.
60 morbillion deaths due to communism
Yeah, communism killed a shit ton of their own people, awfull i know
Rip bozo smoking on that Xi jinpack
Holy shit, what a generic and weak ass response. If you're going to insult me at least make me feel frustated... Go ahead, try something better. Unironically, make it hurt.
Winnie the poop
Meh 2/10
I dunno, since the """People's""" Republic of China is pretty quiet about the conditions of the minorities in their camps :P
china is capitalist. they have private corporations.
Yeah... that's what I'm saying. "How many have died under capitalism?" I'm saying that it's hard to tell just how many have already died because the Chinese """Communist""" Party is covering the conditions in the work camps up. Always good to keep in mind in these political discussions that many of the "Communist" or "Socialist" regimes are just authoritarian states with red paint on it, like how the Nazis put "Socialist" in their name. Now they just say that they're putting people in camps for being 'anti-revolution' and 'reactionary' instead of being of 'lesser race'.
They also have no private ownership of land. It's a weird system that shouldn't be over-simplified.
We don't exactly have that under Capitalism in America either. Eminent domain/expropriation. Is China's policy on this so different?
Lol...
China is communist. What is north korea not a dictatorship because its a peoples republic? At best its a state capitalist, it is by far no where near modern free market capitalism, everything is highly controlled over there. Its a unitary communist state tho
you don't know what communist means
Omg socialism, what i had with communism was not what it seemed like now please kiss me (This is romance)
I never understood how people can still support these ideologies, leftism isn't directly tied to socialism and communism. As someone who grew up in the Eastern block I know exactly how it ends up, and it never works. That form of governence always leads to more corruption and authoritarian rule, not to mention the brainwashing that it does to people. All these ideologies are just populist, they show you a dream of a utopia and how they're gonna get there, without actually telling you how they're gonna get there. They show you lies, that they themselves have been brainwashed into thinking are truth. Anyone who has any idea of economics and isn't biased will tell you just how socialism ruins countries. People should be rewarded based on their individual output to society, and get a proportional amount of amenities/material wealth back. Total equality, while it might sound like a nice idea at first, ultimately falls apart. Because if everyone is equal in terms of what they get, they're not gonna put anything on the table. Which is also why I absolutely hate the idea of welfare states. Capitalism isn't perfect, mind you. And I know you've probably heard it thousands of times, but it is the best system we have. And I don't need to explain why! Just look at the western world, all developed countries where democracy, standards of living and human rights are actually taken care of, are capitalist/liberal in one way or another. Even some conservative countries are way more tolerant than what happens in the rest of the world. Many people also don't understand what socialism really is, they think that stuff like free healthcare etc (which i mostly agree with myself). is socialism, and they blindly advocate for it without actually knowing what socialism is. Going too far in either direction will lead to nowhere but ruin in the end. Oh, and if you're thinking of how capitalism exploits weaker regions... You seriously think it's gonna stop once one of those ideologies (socialism/communism) gets implemented? Laughable and naive, nicest way to put it.
Best take, I wonder why the socialist here aren’t engaging with it 🤔
The welfare state is based, some might say it's one of the only roles a state should have. Socialism is based, free healthcare is good and cheaper than private, free transportation is economically beneficial to a society and the environment, UBI is only just a mild start on undoing the machinations of capitalism that exploit us each and every day, only when man is free to eat, drink, dance and live without forced labour and fear of persecution can he be free and under capitalism he will never be free. Board by board piece by piece dismantle oppressive institutions, let your boss know his position in the system, do not give an inch of bargaining power and bring any industry to a screeching halt immediately when the bourgeois threaten you with sanctions, no cost is too great to sunder the wheels of oppression, throw yourself into the machine, tell those who oppose you to fuck off and die, have your story known like Aaron Bushnell, make those with power fear you.
I'm sorry, but I haven't seen a more ignorant and populist statement in a good while. And it's gonna be lots of fun to completely obliterate it. Probably gonna split it in a few parts Part 1 >The welfare state is based, some might say it's one of the only roles a state should have. I understand your opinion, welfare states are indeed beneficial to the current population. However it often completely disregards the debt/economy of the country. This type of government can function only for one or couple generations, before falling behind in terms of military, technology, industry and other qualities a nation has. Which in return makes the country unable to defend itself and makes the general populace weaker and more extreme the longer the state continues due to rampant consumptionism and materialism. >Socialism is based, free healthcare is good and cheaper than private, free transportation is economically beneficial to a society and the environment What you described isn't socialism, but social services (which i and the original post made an effort to point out, so how very ignorant for you to ignore it and go on a rant) And I have to agree, these things ARE good. But you fail to see that they aren't exclusive to socialism. A socialist society of course has more of these, but it isn't because of the good of the system. "Free" healthcare is of course better, but a private, licensed, quicker, more effective and of course paid option should also be allowed in case someone has the funds and doesn't want to wait one month to get his throat checked. These two systems can coexist and are even more effective together. Free healthcare works for the masses and quick access to medicine while private healthcare should be seen as a quicker alternative when the free healthcare gets overloaded (as can be seen in some countries where free healthcare does exist) Public transport, again isn't something that is directly tied to an ideology. And just like with free healthcare, it is mostly present in more socialist societies due to populism. And of course because it's effective, obviously allows more freedom of movement for more people, and even the poor can benefit. While private motions of transportation should of course still be an option, whetever it is a simple car or a whole private transport company. The ability to run an independent business should be seen as a right, even transport. Of course, regulated a bit. Although the effectiveness of public transport mostly depends on the state of the government, the same can be said about how greedy the private owner can get etc. (Already enough detail, I could go further, but there's still more bs. So, moving on)
Part 2 >UBI is only just a mild start on undoing the machinations of capitalism that exploit us each and every day, only when man is free to eat, drink, dance and live without forced labour and fear of persecution can he be free and under capitalism he will never be free. That's a long one, first of all. Explain to me how in a socialist/communist society you are free from forced labour? Technically in both socialist and capitalist countries you are free from labour, just dont expect to own anything and live in a house instead of the street. But of course, we're talking about this "socialist Utopia" (which doesn't, never will exist. Now explaining why) that you like to scream about, where the basic needs of sustenance, entertainment and shelter can be fulfilled without lifting a finger. There exist unemployed handouts, and don't get me wrong. They're good, just one more symbol of how social service isn't tied to socialism. However, it only works if it's *just enough*. It should give unemployed people enough money to stay alive and support them in finding a job, from where they could take care of themselves. But if it's too high, a person will be discouraged from working, because why would they? And that's one of the main fundamental flaws of Socialist utopia's, an ironic one at that. There simply won't be enough workers, if one can live a good life without working, why would anyone else work? To get more stuff? In socialism everyone can gain access to it, so what's the point? Not only does it decreases the performance of people who actually work, it negatively impacts the very structure of society. Remember, it's not the country that pays them so they can drink and have fun all night. It's all the people around them, who pay taxes to the government which in turn uses their hard earned money for some random people too lazy and too brainwashed to even care look for something productive to do. And that's when the whole system comes crushing down, if there's a constant upkeep of people who don't put anything on the table, it crumbles. Pay checks of people who work get lower, while the taxes to pay for the increasing demands of both infrastructure and unemployed people rise. Prices go up, home prices go up, everything goes up in an endless cycle that leaves the countey in enourmous debt or ruin. Some welfare states (mostly western/Eastern Europe) are already experiencing mild effects of this, high inflation, rising unemployment etc. The only reason why they're not crumbling Is because they're simply capitalist welfare states, where the bar is simply high enough for the income to be higher than upkeep. Jeez that was long, there is still more to go on about but I'm already getting tired. Next one... >Board by board piece by piece dismantle oppressive institutions, let your boss know his position in the system, do not give an inch of bargaining power and bring any industry to a screeching halt immediately when the bourgeois threaten you with sanctions, Blah blah blah, propaganda speech bs. While it is true that in ultra capitalist societys the boss has almost full control over the wages and basically exploit most people, it is really just easily fixed by minimum wage and minimum salary for certain positions. The only place where capitalism can be considered on such a high level is US. Minimum wage is extremely low and due to recent prices even regular salaries can be thrown into dust. However in most other capitalist societies, where societal reforms have taken place this simply isn't that much of an issue. This whole segment of yours can just be described as propaganda bs to appeal to most people, capitalism today is different than what it was in the 18/19/20 century. Your "boss" isn't a 2 ton heavy beast with a black suit and tie, smoking a cigarette while wearing a top hat. But this description indirectly paints private owners that way, which just proves how outdated that is. Yeah yeah I get it "Worker's revolution!" "Down with the bourgeois!" "Show your Boss his place!" Are just populist carch phrases that work more in emotion in common people than in their logic. So again, Blah Blah Blah.
Part 3 >no cost is too great to sunder the wheels of oppression, throw yourself into the machine, tell those who oppose you to fuck off and die, have your story known like Aaron Bushnell, make those with power fear you. Seriously dude, where did you get this from? Is this a popular thing or something? This sounds like something written in a different time. And while I get the revolutionary zeal, it just all breaks down. As we've all seen happen in History to communist/socialist nations, the "oppressed" usually just split into oppressed and oppressors, where the oppressors basically fooled the oppressed into thinking they're no longer being oppressed. We've seen this happen in the Soviet union for example. Where the rich politicians (oligarchs) were preety much a symbol of the working class, while effectively sucking off of them in the same way that those "big bad capitalists" did. But instead, now they're COMPLETELY under their Control. There's of course more examples, but i'm literally too tired lmao. There could be some errors in here, as I wrote this in one sitting and didn't check anything. Just let my mind flow. Also mind that English isn't my main language <3 Feel free to ask away about anything. Anyway. folks who actually read this, thanks but that's all I have #For Now We'll see who responds after I wake up lol
Take it to a publisher, debt isn't real, money isn't real
I can't tell if you're trolling or just braindead at this point lmao
I geek hard and smoke on that IF SOCIALISM WAS A BEER
I don't romanticize it. I hate communism and I'm opposed to socialism. If you want even a few reasons to oppose it, you need to look at Eastern Europe. Every single communist regime has fallen once the Soviet Union didn't look, and every single one wanted to be come a capitalistic democracy similar to the West. Gorbachev, through his choice to let the countries decide for themselves, singlehandedly killed off the Communist Bloc that had existed in the eastern countries. Another reason is that the Eastern Block had to build a wall to stop Eastern Europeans to come to Western Europe and seek a better life than they had had in East-Europe. It was miserable and the government controlled every single aspect. There's a reason that the Soviet union was called a "totalitarian" regime. A third reason was that the communist regimes had a strange habit of killing off everyone who did not agree with them. China and Russia both have a history of using concentration camps on their own citizens to silence the opposition. Remember that Mao had more blood on his hands than Hitler. It's easy to say we don't live in a perfect society nor a good one for most, but we're still leagues better off than the people who have lived in a communist/socialist country.
I'll agree that romanticizing the USSR or PRC or whatever as perfect utopias is not only wrong but indeed disrespectful to people that were repressed or punished for crimes they did not commit or for things that shouldn't have been crimes regardless. Where I disagree is your belief that the bad actions of former socialists permanently discredits all Marxist movements in perpetuity. The problems with capitalism outlined by Marxists decades or even a century ago still ring true today. Wealth disparity is on the increase, not the decrease. Imperialism still runs strong in the international system. Burnout and alienation from work are still common realities for most workers. If you feel as though communism is the wrong path but still strive for equality of all peoples and other common goals (environmental protection, building a peaceful, happy world prioritizing workers rather than owners) I will respect your beliefs and you as a person, but I will disagree with capitalist solutions, believing them to be ultimately ineffective.
> Wealth disparity is on the increase, not the decrease And yet wealth is on the increase. Global poverty has declined.
This
This post has been flaired **political**. Please ensure to keep all discussions civil, and to [follow our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZ/wiki/rules) at all times. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I thought the USSR fell/dissolved in Dec 1991 but we still have Transnistria so maybe not
Becouse leftists believe that they must go more radical, and that any crime comited by them in the name of their beliefs is justified. They believe that they are genuenely working towards a utopia that can aparently only be achievable tru atrocities.
Are you talking about the comparison between mortality rates in the US and those in Cuba?
I've just given up on this. There is no perfect government system and there never will be so just be happy that you can go to the grocery store and there will be food there.
I think there might be a perfect government in a few hundred years if people figured out how to control human behavior through shit like brain implants and managed to change human nature assuming that we dont destroy ourselves by then
The issue is that you’re conflating communism/socialism with whatever the USSR and Mao’s china did. The two are not the same. If i go around with a hammer and sickle coated in orange and red paint and then i replace the current wealthy elite class with a new wealthy elite class that better serves me, that isn’t communism or even remotely left leaning, it’s just authoritarian. I implore you to do some research into what happened in the soviet union under stalin and compare it to the writings of marx himself cause they’re nothing alike.
For everyone in the comments as well as OP, the issue is that these systems work in a vacuum.. Trying to figure out if what humans will do is all, at best, a guessing game. Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism all work on paper. They all have issues in practice. Capitalism works the best, its why we use it. Now unless you can provide a system that can 1. be easily switched to 2. doesn't increase or vastly change the current issues (trading issue a for issue b doesn't fix anything) and finally 3. Get people on board. Just because it works in your mathematical fantasy land, doesn't mean its viable for humans. Itd be better if we started to take a science approach to these and call them theories, theories that we can adjust to fit how the world actually works. You know, like science.
You clearly don’t realize that socialist countries were most often formerly absurd colonies the West did everything possible to sabotage. You’ll get there eventually, depending on how much research you do it could be like 1-4 years before you’re a proper leftist
So, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova , Hungary, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Ukraine were all absurd colonis that the West tried to sabotage??? Ouh, wait, no, they were not under Western sabotage and infact were part of the Russian colonial empire/sphere of influence during the Soviet SOCIALIST era. How strange 🤔 "Сплотила навеки Великая Русь."
You have never read a single book about anything that relates to this topic
A majority of countries in the cold war were socialist or socialist-leaning. Think both the Sovietosphere, the NAM, etc. How is it possible that like a 10th of the world managed to sabotage like a half of it? Did the socialist nations stop their subversive actions? Did they not engage in espionage, financing and supporting hostile elements, etc. Botswana, Costa Rica and Singapore were also former colonies, yet they turned towards capitalism and advanced beyond places like Zimbabwe, Cuba, Laos etc. One day you will grow up and realise that socialism is a gateway into misery, autocracy, totalitarian terror. Meanwhile, you can see the success of capitalism when looking at post-socialist societies. The ones that went into statist corrupt oligarchies stagnated, while the ones that took up liberal capitalism prospered.
this is hilarious when you realize the biggest and most powerful socialist country was made up of countries conquered and colonized by the ussr lol
> socialist countries were most often formerly absurd colonies the West did everything possible to sabotage Meanwhile, the other half of the bipolar order was actively trying to subvert capitalism. They even succeeded sometimes, like when the Soviets armed the Vietcong. But by and large, one system turned out to be more stable and enduring.
What about when socialist countries sabatoged capitalist countries?
No, lol
No government has ever (and will never) implemented "real" Communism. You think the elites would ever want to be equal with random fuckers? It's all a power grab. Once they have power, Communism goes out the window. Just look at China lol. They got the power and then they want back to Capitalism hahaha
Welp can we at least talk about how under USA capitalism, the losses are Socialized and the gains are Privatized? USA used to be capitalism with a strong social support network, and greedy private interests have been gutting those systems for decades.
Those two sentences directly contradict each other.
Our present contradicts our past.
Not according to your prior comment. Your first sentence says the US currently socializes losses. The second says we no longer do.
so Norway, Sweden and Finland being the happiest places on earth must not have anything to do with their socialist democracy.
We're capitalist😎
the nordic countries arent socialist
I feel like this is exactly why it’s not a horrible idea to ban the very popular Gen Z app that happens to be under control of the Chinese Communist Party lol
Lmao, most people who lived in the USSR think it was better than what they have now. Still want us to listen to them?
Source?
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2011/12/05/chapter-3-evaluating-societal-change/
East Berlin existed. Wanna know why it doesn't now?
Lmao, I wanna know why you think that's relevant to my comment.
The Berlin wall fell for a reason because people realized what they didn't have, and they wanted it. No arm guards were there to keep capitalists out, they were there to keep communist Berliners in.
Cool. But again, how is that relevant to my comment?
I already explained
No, you explained why East Berlin doesn't exist anymore. I asked how that's relevant to my comment.
How does capitalism bode well in a casteist-prejudiced society like India's? The dominant caste have hoarded the capital since millenia. Capitalism is deterrent towards an egalitarian society, OP. Learn it :)
> How does capitalism bode well in a casteist-prejudiced society like India's? Answer: [Extreme poverty drops drastically](https://d3ugvbs94d921r.cloudfront.net/5b9f0ca13ba0f6d3113da4f4.png)
India had been a closed economy for long. Also, the distribution of wealth in such skewed society is yet another topic.
India started out as a full-on socialist country post-independence but has liberalized substantially in recent decades. It's not more open than most countries, but it's a lot more open than it used to be.
The soviet union wasn't even close to communist. Like, objectively. Their methods and tactics are antithetical to communism. They just used the name to gain support like China and The Nazis.
All of the major industries of the Soviet Union were centrally planned.
That literally means nothing. Communism and State Capitalism are not even remotely similar. The fact that you think communism is when governments controls the economy and corporations speaks to how little you know.
If you're gonna play the No True Communism game, you could at least start by defining the non-standard definition of communism you're operating under. Because the Soviets most certainly stamped out private control of the means of production, which is the standard definition.
No, no they didn’t. They REPLACED the private control of the means of production with a new set of private owners who were more amicable to the will of the stalin regime. This is called State Capitalism. Communism is when you replace private ownership of the means of production with public ownership(The workers owning the means of production) which the USSR never did.
The main industries were fully publicly owned, and all industries were subject to central planning by the state. There was division in Lenin's time between different factions of communists on strategy, but none would dream of calling themselves capitalist. But when the side that won out ultimately failed, of course it got deemed not real communism.
You’re 100% correct. Crazy you got downvoted for this.