All you gotta do is pedal hard enough to break the chain and ride straight up the wall.
You can make it if you just believe in yourself!(although in reality that wall is 10 miles high)
You can only make it to the top by stepping on other people’s shoulders
I’d prefer to just spawn at the top, and never have to contemplate that pedaling life.
It not a massive gap like that, but it’s tall enough and far enough away that 99.9% of people who try, fall.
You can make it if you just believe in yourself!
At some point one has to ask oneself not whether one can, but whether one should. Is it really worth it trying everything and giving your all for a company which will probably ditch you in the end, after all? I don’t think so. Don’t put in more effort than you expect to get as a result.
capitalism is great for capitalists, they live like gods
It’s very hard to be a capitalist, you have to scam people and lie to get good deals
The majority of capitalists pay people to do that, they’ve never worked.
Apparently as long as you have someone else do the immoral things on your behalf, its all gravy. Free will and all right? They could have just not done the evil things that I paid them to do.
now you have to use your own unicycle and smart phone app at the same time but you can’t use the smart phone while on the unicycle.
and while you must smile you are not allowed to sing.
Hmm as long as I can paint my unicycle and have a big cool wheel
Communism works the same way, except the party leaders are the ones on top
Quick, explain this graph:
The graph highlights that during Soviet times at least 20% of wealth is in top10% hands, the party leaders and their cronies. If it was truly communism then the top10% would own 10% of the wealth. The party leaders and their cronies owned a disproportionate amount of wealth. Everyone was equal, but some were more equal among others.
It also highlights how the erosion of social services and a lack of a federal government opposing corporate interests is to the detriment of its people.
Authoritarianism is not the way, and neither is crony capitalism in a farcical democracy.
The graph highlights that during Soviet times at least 20% of wealth is in top10% hands, the party leaders and their cronies. If it was truly communism then the top10% would own 10% of the wealth. The party leaders and their cronies owned a disproportionate amount of wealth. Everyone was equal, but some were more equal among others.
“True Communism” isn’t a thing. You don’t measure metrics by how purely they adhere to ideology, but by measurable improvements for the Working Class. There is Capitalism, Socialism (where the USSR stood), Lower-Stage Communism, and Upper-Stage Communism. Each of these phases takes time and looks different. Marxism has never been about equal pay, but the Proletariat taking control and working towards Communism. Communism cannot be instantly lept to, and even if it could, it has never been about equal pay.
Additionally, pay was higher for doctors, engineers, professors, and other skilled workers, as is in line with Marxism. It wasn’t just Party Members.
It also highlights how the erosion of social services and a lack of a federal government opposing corporate interests is to the detriment of its people.
In what way? In the USSR, Healthcare and Education were free, housing was cheap, public transit was highly developed, and workers had more vacation days and earlier retirement than US workers.
Authoritarianism is not the way, and neither is crony capitalism in a farcical democracy.
Explain what you mean by any of that gibberish.
Top 10% owning 10% of wealth makes no sense as it means perfectly equal wealth redistribution. It is an ultimate goal, but it is not practically achievable. 20% is close enough.
It is an ultimate goal
it isn’t though. Wealth distribution isn’t the aim of communism, just inevitable effect of it. And as such it don’t have to be exactly equal. Quoting Lenin:
The abolition of classes means placing all citizens on an equal footing with regard to the means of production belonging to society as a whole. It means giving all citizens equal opportunities of working on the publicly-owned means of production, on the publicly-owned land, at the publicly-owned factories, and so forth.
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
As you can see total equality is neither achievable nor desirable under socialism and meaningless under communism.
whats the y axis?
it demonstrably doesn’t, but brainwashed smooth brains will never stop regurgitating this in face of all evidence
The problem I understand is that it always end ups in corruption, how do you avoid the corruption of your government
That tends to be a general problem with human societies, and as Cowbee points out there’s nothing about communism that makes society more prone to corruption. If anything, I’d argue it’s the opposite since you have less inequality. In general, I look at corruption as a form of inefficiency. So, a government that has corruption, but works in the interests of the majority overall is still a better scenario than one that works in the interest of a capital owning minority.
What about the Soviet system is more prone to corruption than, say, your standard Western Country? If you can answer specifically what you’re concerned about, then we can answer why the Soviet System is better, or has had advancements since the USSR such as the concept of the Mass Line to account for weaknesses.
If you’re unfamiliar with Marxism, I can recommend some good reading to understand it. It’s incredibly easy to make up your own conclusions about Marxism if you are only aware of part of Marxism, which is a broad topic itself.
You get rid of the people who would bribe them and then you pay government officials the same as the average worker.
You took highlighting the problems of capitalism as pro-communism? One-way track mind?
To be fair, this is the Meme community hosted on Lemmy.ml, and OP is a prolific Communist poster.
Wait, OP has only communism in mind?
OP is a Communist, they post pro-Communist and anti-Capitalist posts, generally.
And the way to change it is to Vote Vote Vote! Vote for the Democrats! This time they are really gonna do it.
If the leftish faction won every time, politics as a whole would shift left. So unironically, yes, vote.
If lobbying and campaign donation stay legal, no matter which politicians you vote, the result will stay the same. The rich and corps can easily buy out any politicians they want
Even then, if a Communist or Socialist party took power, the other mechanisms of the State will work against it. Allende proved this.
Yes, and don’t forget to donate to be extra sure. Donate that little money you safe from your three sharing economy jobs (after you payed your rent to Blackstone) to the Democrats, so they can pay a consultant ghoul a six figure salary to think of a new way to market genocide denial.
The leftish faction won every time, and that’s why the democrats are merging with republicans now. 🤡
Not true, nor can the DNC be considered leftish. The DNC will always act in the interests of their donors and economic interests, hence their unceasing support for genocide despite genocide being unpopular.
Brutal.
I agree with this image, and I’m quite curious to see what “rich” tastes like… But I feel like the mechanics of this picture took me a second or two longer than it should to understand.
Edit: like are they balancing their unicycles on the larger cylinder? They must have really good balance to manage that for more than a second. And if that is true, what happens if they fall forwards? I see the danger if them falling backwards, but does that mean they just can’t fall forwards?
it’s illustrating how they have to work really hard in a very precarious conditions to keep the system running. Falling off is equivalent to losing your job/savings and ending up on the street.
I think ultimately it is just that they are working to turn the cylinder that moves the cog that elevates the resources upward and then they’re hoping they get some overspill.
I do get that ultimately that is what the picture is coveying, and I agree with the message, but if the physics of it make me pause, it detracts from the message.
I guess I see what you’re saying, especially since there’s a call-out to someone falling backwards on the left side.
If I had to guess it’s to showcase the grind can’t last forever, but I suppose it could introduce that ambiguity that causes pause.
I feel like it just paints an absurd situation. They’re in a precarious situation and can lose their balance and fall forward or backward. I don’t think there’s anything weird with the physics if you accept it’s supposed to be an absurd situation.
Human tastes like pork, so that’s what they taste like.
but does that mean they just can’t fall forwards?
To fall forwards, you would have to clip through the wall.
@yogthos In reality there’s a lot more people falling off the unicycle…
totally
that lady sux at pedaling!!
How dare she stop peddling after giving birth >:c
keep pedalling!!!
That looks more like feudalism.
For Capitalism there should be multiple different money scoops, some better designed than others. There should also be a greased-up rope that leads from the unicycle-bar to the top, showing that it’s theoretically possible to rise to a different class, it’s just practically impossible.
Capitalism is a dynamic system that evolves over time. The general mechanics of the system lead to increased capital concentration over time, so late stage capitalism starts to look largely indistinguishable from feudalism.
It’s so lazy to describe capitalism backsliding towards feudalism as “late stage capitalism”. If capitalism actually had “stages”, you’d have to progress forward to reach later stages. Backsliding towards the feudalism that birthed capitalism isn’t some kind of “late stage”, it’s capitalism failing and feudalism reasserting itself.
It obviously does have stages that progress towards each other, and the reason it progresses in a certain way is due to mechanics of the system. It’s not backsliding towards anything, it’s evolving under the selection pressures encoded in its rules. Incidentally, this is what the game of monopoly illustrates. Everybody starts on even footing and over time, through competition, all the capital accumulates with a single player. This happens regardless how many times you play the game.
It’ intellectually lazy to think that feudalism just magically reasserts itself without thinking about the process that leads to capitalism turning back into feudalism.
Sure, sure.
Imagine not being able to understand how selection pressures work. 🤦
Imagine thinking political theory involves selection pressures.
Politics is literally the rules of society which are the pressures on human behavior. People behave in a way that the conomic/political system rewards, and avoid behaving in the way it punishes. Amazing that this could be a difficult concept for people to understand, yet here we are.
Credits here https://newsie.social/@royaards/113045674985694312
