Haha, funny way to say “working in the lead mines”, comrade.
Comrade, we all know lead poisoning and the need for safety gear are capitalist propaganda! Now, get back in the mines! Production must increase 50% this year, and your state-appointed union representative says it can!
Capital successfully fought to put lead into American’s blood and lungs for a century after it was known to be poison. To this day they’re still fighting to keep it there.
You know, it took until 2003 for Russia to remove leaded gasoline from stations. The Soviets never did it LMFAO
but nice try
EDIT: based on another commenter, OP’s claim isn’t even factual.
And it took the US until 1996 (after fall of USSR)? Not to mention that it was capitalism (General Motors) that spread the hoax about leaded gasoline being safe, under the guise of scientific research in 1921.
This is not the gotcha you think it is.
If it was all an evil capitalist conspiracy, why did the communists go along with it? Hmm?
It was not uncovered until much later that this scientific research was in fact a hoax to promote General Motors’ business.
This is very easily verified with a web search. I would be happy to guide you to specific sources and readings as well.
So, the Soviets couldn’t do their own research. Got it
deleted by creator
Did chatgpt not include this or…?
https://bpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.gatech.edu/dist/a/1473/files/2020/09/sovenv.pdf
Nevertheless, the Soviet Union took effective action to protect the population from lead exposure; it banned lead-based (white lead) paint and it banned the sale of leaded gasoline in some cities and regions. While leaded gasoline was introduced in the 1920s in the United States, it was not until the 1940s that leaded gasoline was introduced in the Soviet Union (5). In the 1950s, the Soviet Un- ion became the first country to restrict the sale of leaded gaso- line; in 1956, its sale was banned in Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev, Baku, Odessa, and tourist areas in the Caucasus and Crimea, as well as in at least one of the “closed cities” of the nuclear weap- ons complex (6, 7). The motivation for the bans on leaded gaso- line is not entirely clear, but factors may have included Soviet research on the effects of low-level lead exposure (8), or sup- port from Stalin himself (5). In any event, the bans on leaded gasoline in some areas prevented what could have been signifi- cant population lead exposure. In the United States and other OECD countries, leaded gasoline has been identified as one of the largest sources of lead exposure (9, 10). Lead-based paint is another potentially significant source of population lead exposure.
Bonus: a great example of capital at work,
Along with a number of other coun- tries, in the 1920s the Soviet Union adopted the White Lead Convention, banning the manufacture and sale of lead-based (white lead) paint (11). In the United States, however, the National Paint, Oil and Varnish Association successfully opposed the ban, and lead-based paint was not banned in the United States until 1971 (12).
Two generations of Americans.
You say that like lead paint isn’t in American buildings still.
Great point, and regulation is still being fought by the real estate industry.
Removed by mod
You’re right, America did bad thing, clearly this completely overrides the wrongs of other countries
The first commenter is talking a hypothetical scenario of socialism being bad, so the second commenter (the one you responded to) responded with actual example of that same hypothetical scenario happening, but except by a capitalist power (the US). I don’t think your response makes sense at all here.
Removed by mod
Calling something “Whataboutism” infers a belief in American exceptionalism. You should question that belief.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Claiming Whataboutism is a logical fallacy first used by English colonizers, dont use it
Removed by mod
Calling out whataboutism is perfectly acceptable when it is being used regardless of its origins.
It is in no way a logical fallacy and in fact the use of whataboutism is itself a logical fallacy.
The flaw in gorilladrum’s argument is that the hypothetical example demonstrates the flaws in that specific situation and does not address problems in socialism as a whole yet they suggest it dismisses the ideology completely.
He was joking, save your whataboutism for “serious” arguments
They are not joking. You can see them continuing here: https://lemm.ee/comment/3563759
And this isn’t whataboutism (not that it matters). The first commenter ridiculed socialism by using a hypothetical scenario. The second commenter showed with evidence this hypothetical scenario is actually real under capitalism.
When a liberal loses an argument they yell “whataboutism” it’s their little white flag
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
And your point is?
Please do share an example of industrialization that somehow doesn’t include unforseen negative health effects.
Go on now, we’ll wait.
My point is that capital has successfully fought to put lead into American’s blood and lungs for over 100 years.
Name a better duo then tankies and whatsboutism
Removed by mod
So in other words you are unwilling to answer the question.
Got it.
This is precisely why I say that you aren’t intellectually serious people.
You have one question in your previous comment on the very first line, and it was answered.
Your statement on the 2nd line doesn’t really make sense, as I don’t think anyone blames people for unforseen negative health effects.
What people are upset about are the forseen, proven, endemic negative health effects being purposefully spread for over a century.
What a crock of shit!
Why would capital willingly poison its workforce as a deliberate policy? That makes zero sense.
I can see capital writing it off as a necessary side-cost of doing business, but I can’t see it as a deliberate policy.
Again, it makes no sense. Capital wants a relatively healthy workforce, not one that’s falling apart due to lead-caused neurological decrepitude.
Textbook whataboutism
What textbook?
I think the hexbears probably fucked OP irl or something. Guy is going full mental illness mode.
Tinfoil is absolutely enough protection against radiation, now go out there and stabilize the reactor!
It’s not even that much radiation, you’re just malingering
The Glorious Leader has declared that we have too much lead. You’re now reassigned to be in front of the firing squad.
The gold standard are urainum mines. Lead are for those with good behavior.
Tbh I’d rather work in a uranium mine, it’s less toxic than lead in the quantities you’d be exposed to
If you are not dead by end of month from radiation, you will be executed for failing to mine the required quantity of uranium.
Remind me, what did they do to indigenous people when they were trying to get uranium for the Manhattan project?
This nonsense is just western projection.
When you own the means of production it’s literally yours. I don’t understand the issue.
Under communism, the state owns the resources. People are not the state.
That’s false. There’s no state in communism. See Karl Marx or any Communist writer on this.
deleted by creator
There’s no utopian vision advocated for by Communist philosophers. They talk exactly about how this would come through. So yes, they speak about it as an achievable and feasible thing.
deleted by creator
The idea is that these socioeconomic orders are global. Capitalism today is global. Even if a country today tries to do not-capitalism, it still must engage in the capitalist sphere, doing trade with them, using money system, debt, and producing purely for the purpose of selling. These are aspects of capitalism we stuck with until the global order isn’t capitalism.
So communism would not come about unless it is global. In which case the question of “other countries” would not apply. You can assume that for whatever reason, a breakaway bunch decide to revert back to capitalism, but that would not go well. Why? Why would anyone whose needs are fully met and their entire time is only spent doing things for their own interests and community decide “I actually wish I had to give most my time to a capitalist in exchange for money that allows me to buy my needs”? For one, money wouldn’t exist in communism, so that part would not even appeal you. Capitalism only has the upper hand because it is already the global system. Once it is overthrown, it is the reverse.
Obviously a society will put guards to deal with lunatics wanting to destroy society for ideological reasons (trying to restore capitalism). It would be in their interest to do so.
I hope I answered your question. Unless your question was “how do we prevent resistance during the revolution / transition”?
deleted by creator
Bob: “Guys… if we could get everyone in the whole world working together to efficiently organize labor and the allocation of resources, there would be no more poverty”
Alice: “Wow Bob, that sounds amazing! How do we make that happen?”
Bob: “Uhh… how many bullets do we have?”
There’s no utopian vision advocated for by Communist philosophers. They talk exactly about how this would come through. So yes, they speak about it as an achievable and feasible thing.
And yet it’s been 200 years since the ‘Imminent’ downfall of capitalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_and_claims_for_the_Second_Coming
Same energy
As marx put it, the only way capitalism would survive is by keeping an infinite growth. Tech is a prime example of that phenomena, where new needs are being created out of thin air: subscriptions, software, etc… Cars, phones have begun to be necessary. That’s how capitalism survives still today: growing more and more by creating new needs for the individual. Except this growth is at the expense of finite ressources, and this is where we’re gonna hit a wall.
Maybe this explains we haven’t seen a capitalist collapse yet. But with today’s ecological concerns, it seems closer than ever
Karl Marc is like Marx, but without that dictatorship of the proletariat cope.
This is a pleasant fiction.
You’ve gotta try reading beyond 6th grade level fiction before judging books on socio-economics.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Myour mistake
You’re mistaken, the state is a collection of proletariat meaning you are a part of the state. You may not be the whole state but it is your land as it is everyone elses
Atleast as far as I understand it
Thank you for the correction sharkfucker420
Always happy to help 👍
Removed by mod
I’ve heard same said about liberal democracy too. “State is made up of us voting citizens” etc etc. Feels as hollow
Removed by mod
But where can we install another electoral college to guarantee govt control over masses wants
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
How much do you and the average person actually own under capitalism
Did you just watch a Brad Bird movie
Big difference between communism and socialism.
That’s correct, but I’m not sure what you understand those terms to mean, because neither really supports taking all ownership away from people. I’m just gonna leave this blorb here, because I feel like this is where it fits best.
Communism in the style of Marx and Engels means that the workers own the means of production. They would have been completely in favor of a person owning their own farm (or jointly owning it if multiple people worked it). They didn’t really envision much of a state to interfere, much less own property.
That the Soviet Union (and later the PRC, fuck them btw) claimed to be building the worker’s paradise under communism was mostly propaganda after Lenin died. There hasn’t been any state that has implemented actual communism as established by theory.
Socialism (as I understand it, but I’m not well-read on it) means the state has social support networks, but largely works under capitalist rules, with bans of exploitative practices. There are some countries trying to implement a light version of this across Europe, to varying success (mostly failing where capitalism is left unchecked).
The issue is that the US started propagandizing like mad during the cold war, and “communism” was just catchier to say than “supportive of a country that is really just a state-owned monopoly”. Soon everything that was critical of capitalism also became “communism”, which eventually turned into a label for everything McCarthy labelled “un-american”. This is also the time they started equating the terms communism and socialism. A significant portion of the US population hasn’t moved past that yet, because it fits well into the propaganda of the US being the best country in the world, the American Dream, all that bs. The boogeyman of “the state will take away the stuff you own” turned out pretty effective in a very materialistic society. Although I’m very glad to see more and more USAians get properly educated on the matter and standing up for their rights rather than letting themselves be exploited.
Your definition of socialism is more akin to a definition of social democracy, which is… maybe a form of socialism, depending on who you ask – it is historically contentious and generally accepted that social democrats aren’t socialists.
Socialism can have all of the things that you described, but it is decidedly anti-capitalist. It reorients how workers relate to the means of production. Under capitalism, the means of production are owned by the bourgeois class, while under socialism, they are collectively owned by the workers.
Fuck the PRC because… They have state-owned enterprise instead of actual communism? Interesting take.
That’s meaningless if they aren’t democratic
Ah yes, because American democracy is going so well.
Who’s interests are the Republicans representing? Who’s interests have the Democrats protected after being in power for 3 years?
Democracy is meaningless if it doesn’t actually act to benefit the people. After all, the goal of government is to improve the lives of the people over which it governs. All of these experiments into different methods of governance should be evaluated based on how much the quality of lives of the population have improved and how happy the population is with their government.
Yes yes we know America is bad too, now do you have an actual point to make?
Removed by mod
You can find a bad example for any form of government. By any reasonable metric of success, the US government is performing poorly compared to non-democratic countries… Even in terms of freedom of speech, given the prevalence of government and intelligence-funded “independent think tanks” that influence policy in Washington.
At least most people in Russia and China can distinguish between the truth and the party line.
They literally have above 90 percent approval according to international studies from people as conservative as fucking Harvard University.
You’re wrong about their institutions but regardless of what you think of their institutions they have a popular mandate, which is how democracies define themselves as legitimate.
Removed by mod
It’s not really a very impressive feat to know literally the most basic fact about communism.
Removed by mod
Socialism means the state has social support networks, but largely works under capitalist rules
What you’re describing is “social democracy” — capitalism with safety nets, where production is still controlled by owners rather than workers. “Socialism” explicitly implies worker control of production. “Nordic socialism” could more accurately be called “Nordic social democracy.”
“Communism” refers to a classless, stateless society where everyone has what they need, no one is exploited or coerced, and there are no wars. It’s an aspirational vision for the future, not something you can do right after a revolution when capitalism still rules the world.
The issue is probably “HahA ComMUnIsM BaD!1!”
*we
*ours
Dude walked right into that one, didn’t they?
Removed by mod
Communism is when no toothbrush
The issue of course is that when we reach peak communism we’ll drop possessive language entirely like in The Dispossessed.
I’ll work and teach on the farm we share.
Removed by mod
It doesn’t sound like you understand these terms.
I too want a post-scarcity luxury space communism utopia. Unfortunately most iterations of communism feel more like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic than actually plugging the hole in the fuselage.
It’s just human nature in my eyes. Power attracts many people and the less positions of power to fill, the fiercer the competition and the more ruthless the ultimate victor. Communism focusses too much power in too few positions, so ultimately, corrupt people are almost guaranteed to win. Democracy is spreading out that power more. It is still not perfect, corrupt people are still regularly found at the top, but they wield less power individually and they have to do it more in the open.
Any socialist society needs to be democratic first, socialist second. Many more democracies have gotten closer to socialism than socialist societies have gotten close to democracy.
Cuba has an extensive democratic process. Cubans just democratically drafted the country’s newest family code, hammering out the details in over 80,000 citizen councils around the country.
Yeah, as far as socialist countries go, Cuba is more democratic than others.
Removed by mod
Idk in my world Denmark and Slovenia aren’t as capitalist as the US while being significantly more democratic.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
This might be true in some sense of talking about this topic but putting economic freedom as the marker for capitalist/socialist tendencyes of a country is a strange choice. No normal person will go yeah these two social democracies are actually more capitalist, than the 5 companies that make up the US government.
Communism focusses too much power in too few positions
Literally the opposite of communism
The ideal of communism, maybe. Yet every country that called itself communist became authotarian. Why is that? Evil tongues might suggest that the ideal of communism simply fails to prevail when confronted with reality.
No country has claimed to have achieved communism. Many other places have tried but it’s usually crushed by capitalist or sometimes even by states claiming to be socialist. It’s also a really simple and tbh ahistorical explanation to claim that communism didn’t work simply because “it was confronted with reality”.
No country has claimed to have achieved communism
That may be your interpretation of that matter. But going with your interpretation, why is that? Maybe because communism fails every time anyone tries to make it a reality?
‘Evil tongues’ was my nickname in high school
In theory yes, and you are going to say all communist countries were not “real communism” now ? The USSR was known for its ruthless and violent political scenes. Leaders condemning their opponents’ families to discredit them for example. North Korea gives all power to the supreme leader (a communist monarchy lmfao). Communist China is the closest to what you might you believe in but it’s insanely violent in the backstage. The closer you are to higher seats of power, the more in danger you are.
On top of that any individual at the top can effectively enact their preferred policies over everyone. Millions died simply because the supreme leader ordered so.
Communist China is the closest to what you might you believe in
Either you didn’t read what I said or you know nothing about communism. Also like what is with people not understanding that no country has ever claimed to have achieved communism? It’s just an objective fact China or the Soviet Union for example never claimed they achieved communism.
No country has ever achieved it for the rather obvious reason that it’s impossible. It’s a nice idea, but it’s a pipe dream.
No country has ever claimed to achieve it but there are societies both past and present that have created similar societes. Like chiapas in Mexico and Rojava today.
You have to be embarrassingly ignorant of the reality on the ground in Chiapas to imagine for a second that this is true.
Unfortunately for your argument, I happen to know a thing or two about Chiapas, lived and worked there for upwards of a year in the mid 90s, and have no idea WTF you’re talking about.
Do tell?
If you’re on the Subcommandante Marcos bandwagon, I cordially enjoin you to go fuck yourself.
Marcos was no more than an opportunistic interloper who tried to jump into a much older indegenio fight as a self-aggrandizing and self-appointed power grab.
At no point in time was it ever the case that he was accurately representing the Lacandon as an honest and disinterested party.
Removed by mod
Communism focusses too much power in too few positions,
marxism would be a better term instead of communism as true communism requires no one having economic or political power over someone else
Removed by mod
It would, but communism on a decently large scale needs someone to allocate resources. And that jon comes with a lot of power. Which brings us back to marxism.
I’m not sure why large scale decision making has to be deferred to a single person instead of a large group. Tbh that’s one of the main problems with current large companies. Why not conduct a fucking vote, not about who should make the decision, but about what decision is made.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
We should select leaders by lottery from a pool of those who have passed a civics exam instead of elections. Maybe that would help with the problem of corrupt people seeking positions of power.
And who makes sure that the rules aren’t broken? Who makes sure the lottery wouldn’t be rigged? Your ‘solution’ is defenseless against corruption. It offers no mechanic to deal with the corrupt. The beauty of democracy and capitalism is that it allows for those who want more power, to achieve it within the system. By that, they will stay within the system and be subjected by the accountability it provides. If your solution allows absolutely no way to stack the cards in your favor, then it will be rejected by all who wish to, and it will crumble before long.
and be subjected by the accountability it provides.
I don’t think you want to give nuclear codes to a random person, though.
Could it be worse than giving them to power hungry octogenarians?
Yes, I do think giving nuclear codes to a randomly selected literal terrorist could turn out worse than the only other time the US launched a nuclear attack. 5000 nukes to peaceful targets is worse than 2 nukes to targets at war.
If you’re going to give power to randomly selected people, you need more checks in place than just “can they pass a civics exam?”
The only thing I know for certain is that the people who want to be in power are very people you don’t want to be in power. We should do that veil of ignorance thing once we havr learnt how to wipe someone’s memory.
Removed by mod
Thats why i personaly believe that we should strive to build an A.I. to replace leadership, be it political and/or economical.
The problem with that is that the most powerful AI, the one with the most capabilities, is built by, or stewarded by the people in power. The problem is that every human is selfish, at least to some degree. Any AI coming from people will be selfish as well. Chatbot Tay might be a meme now, but I think it shows quite apptly that any alorithm that learns from humans will inevitably display human traits and greed is one of those traits.
Removed by mod
Comrade, the ship will not sink if we abuse the workers enough!
The ship is not sinking, the sea level is simply rising to its rightful place
In an orderly manner
What if we plugged the holes with the corpses of the workers we had to sacrifice to achieve a hole-free hull?
Dude why do people think communism means you can’t own anything. There’s a difference between private and personal properties. You can own a house, and a car, hell even a whole farm. What you cannot do is hold capital.
A farm is means of production, therefore it would classify as public property. You cannot own production under communism, only products.
Therefore it could count as a means of production but in general in Communism personal farms of reasonable size and constant use are encouraged. Again, that’s a misunderstanding of communism.
That’s not a feature of communism, it’s a compromise based on the recognition that private ownership produces more efficient outcomes at scale. According to the collective farming wiki: A Soviet article in March 1975 found that 27% of the total value of Soviet agricultural produce was produced by private farms despite the fact that they only consisted of less than 1% of arable land (approximately 20 million acres), making them roughly 40 times more efficient than collective farms.
No one wants to recreate the Great Famine (The most deadly famine in human history - caused entirely by communism and specifically collectivized farms).
There’s also Holomodor in the USSR which lead to similarly deadly outcomes.
Fun fact for you: The famines were largely caused by Stalin appointing a guy to do agriculture policy who knew less than nothing about agriculture. He forced farmers to plant crops too densely because “communist crops will not compete for nutrients” causing the crops to just die. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko
Most dictators are absolute troglodytes and Stalin was no exception.
One point in time does not constitute a robust conclusion. Consider any time before and how collectivism did yield considerable agriculture gains for the USSR. Like do we really think they fought WW2 with the same or less agricultural efficiency they had before their revolution?
This.
“A fledgling Nation failed after the most powerful nations on earth collectively conspired to hold it back and ideally topple it so every similar nation most also fail.” And these people were paranoid for some reason, could you imagine?
Y’all just in here doing good work, absolutely wrecking these guys.
Oversimplified for brevity, but basically: You may not be able to OWN a farm in the sense that the land itself is collectivized (not even always true under socialism, depends on specific policies and also whether you consider the “farm” to be a different entity from the land it’s sitting on, in that case you often own the farm itself, just look at home ownership rates in socialist countries), but you can USE and WORK ON the farm to generate products for yourself and society at large. I don’t see it as that different practically from the perspective of the farmer, since they’re still living on the land and taking advantage of its productivity.
I think that’s certainly better than renting or mortgaging the land and having to deal with landlords and banks. Collectivization usually freed farmers from their obligation to their landlord or private bank and they just continued farming as normal. It’s the landlords who had their “livelihood” taken away (i.e. land that they owned but someone else was living and working on), not the farmers doing the actual work.
Perhaps you have a source on the collective farms of the Great Leap Forward years in Communist China, or a URL that points to the collective farms in the Ukraine and how it made the farmers better off?
Once again I will refer to Dessalines’ links.
https://dessalines.github.io/essays/socialism_faq.html#on-the-ussr – has links about Ukraine
These are bad links because they are from a biased source and not properly cited.
There are no unbiased sources. Zero. Because that’s not how politics or the world works.
Also, I fail to see how they’re badly cited. It’s literally a giant list of links to books, historical records, news articles, and write-ups by other socialists that are also cited.
The sources range wildly, some are just images and links to podcasts or articles. For example the “How many people did the Great Leap Forward kill” link just goes to a Reddit comment on r/communism where the OP just says “it’s fine… there were famines all the time in China!”.
Because in practice the line between capital and personal property is very thin. Can a car or apartment not be used to generate income in a modern economy?
When the soviets were in power they would force multiple families under one roof (kommunalka). Think 4-8 families sharing a kitchen and a bathroom. Each family was given just one room and all housing was considered communal housing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communal_apartment?wprov=sfti1
After Stalin’s death families began receiving single family apartments due to massive housing reform by Kruschev, but were hastily built and called ‘khrushchyoba,’ a cross between Khrushchev’s name and the Russian term for slums. That by the way still leaves a multigenerational period from 1917-1954 where the kommunalka would have been the primary unit of housing.
You can generate money with a car or a farm. The whole problem with capitalism is getting money without working because you let people work with your stuff. So owning a car and use ist as a taxi is fine with communism. Having a taxi company is not. But you can form a taxi company with others. The difference is no one has financial power over others. No one just profits because he/she is the owner. There are people in charge but they are in charge because they have the knowledge and ability not just because they own everything and can do what they want.
Listen, I’m a worker who saved money through my labour. Why should I not get to use my saved labour by deploying it into an investment?
People accuse leftists of idealist thinking but in what fantasy world are you thinking your personal savings from selling your labor is ever going to come close to what would be considered “capital” in the sense being discussed here?
It’s directly deployed in stocks and real estate, what do you mean?
Most capital is “collectively owned” through public corporations, pension funds, etc.
Not most, in the US around 400 individuals own over 50% of wealth. Similar situation in Russia.
You’re right that wealth is concentrated, but I was saying that the assets are collectively owned. For example I am a shareholder of Amazon, a publicly-traded company that Jeff Bezos owns a large stake in. So Amazon is “collectively owned” but each share gets one vote instead of one person.
Where do you think the value for your return on investment comes from? It’s extracted from the labor of workers.
It’s not extracted it’s combined with labour to produce higher output than labour or capital on their own.
For example a worker with a shovel could only dig a small hole a day, but with the injection of capital (ie a backhoe) they can dig many more holes. The worker can increase their pay compared to what they would’ve made with just a shovel and the person that provided the backhoe can also generate a healthy return for their capital contribution.
healthy return
How is it healthy that some rich investor gets to play golf all day because he can afford to buy backhoes and hire people to use them? How is it healthy that he earns more money if he pays them less, or that he alone is in charge of resources that a whole community worked to produce? What is healthy about any of this?
What you are describing is the entire fucking premise of socialism: workers cannot afford the means of production, so production ends up controlled by a handful of wealthy capitalists with perverse incentives and no loyalty to the rest of the human race. An entire tradition of thought is dedicated to how unhealthy that is.
Again, capital is extracted from labor. Who do you think built the back hoe? It didn’t fall off the back hoe tree. Workers built it, workers designed it. If some capitalist pig didn’t own it, then the laborers could just use it.
Even a labourer who has saved up can buy a back-ho. The backho could have been produced by a communist country or work co-op. Who produced the back-ho is not important.
The important thing is that value is stored, invested and combined with labour to make everyone better off. This is why wages are higher in countries with more capital such as the USA.
Why should you get money for doing nothing? I think that is a good question. If your investments are earning money, for example because you invested in real estate, then you’ve driven up the price of rent for the rest of us.
But anyway, in reality almost all of the money in the stock market is held by people who are not like you, people who didn’t save their money by working a nine to five for 10 or 20 years.
Nobody is stopping you from leaving your money sitting in a bank account. Nobody is suggesting you shouldn’t save money.
You keep saying “doing nothing” but I earned that money and now I am risking it in investments with uncertain returns.
You work for your money. But the people making the big investments don’t.
If you want to work to earn some money and then save it and then later spend it, great. But you’re not content with that.
Let’s look at a simple example. Suppose you take your savings and you buy a rental property and start renting it out. You’re taking a risk that perhaps property prices will go down, or that maybe you’ll run into a string of 10 bad tenants in a row, and you might lose some money. All the while, you’re sitting there doing absolutely nothing, and probably you’re getting paid for it. But what about your tenants? What’s the risk they’re taking? They could pay rent on time for decades and yet never be able to qualify for a loan to buy property of their own, because people like you have bought up what used to be more widely available. A huge percent of the population is working paycheck to paycheck, and if they have a string of bad luck that lasts more than a month or two then they’re going to end up homeless. Of course their life expectancy will be slashed in a second. In other words, my friend, you’re risking some extra money while they’re risking their lives.
Also, as several of us have pointed out, most investment money is held by the rich so that they can get richer at our expense. Many people would prefer to get rid of that system rather than try and piggyback on it. There are other ways to structure society so that you can retire in comfort.
How dare you make fiscally responsible investments and expect some return in exchange for the risk you’re taking on by letting others use your stuff. How. Dare. You. /s
Being responsible isn’t an excuse to own other people’s livelihood.
Risk is an idiot’s justification. Anyone who owns a business knows the whole point of a limited liability corporation is it removes any risk in case of failure.
If Walmart went tits up today the Walton’s would still be rich. It’s the workers who bear all the risk.
The worker can walk away at any time to another job, can even change entire industries.
Hmm, I got a feeling that there is no such thing called “investment” under communism.
Why are you hoarding wealth?
Like what else would i do with it? Wreck the environment by spending it on things i don’t need?
Maybe don’t charge as much?
😂
Invest in what?
That was a really fascinating read, thanks. Checked out a few of the other links from the wiki. Do you happen to have or know where I can see interior pictures and floorplans?
I’ll try looking it up myself in the meantime; I love stuff of that nature
You should check out “The Cold War Podcast”. The housing episode is really good.
So when does a farm go from personal to private property? Is it the moment you rent it or employ other people on it?
One of the thousands of nuanced use cases that generalist communist revolutionaries haven’t even thought about let alone have the skills to provide solutions for.
They have a solution, it’s labor camps or bullets to any citizen who doesn’t follow orders.
Wild how even when they were going full-on gulags , their peak imprisonment rate didn’t surpass the United States. And we’ve got plenty of bullets for those that run or resist arrest.
What about it?
It’s an oversimplification, but… Sort of, yeah. Property you “own” to keep from others, and make money from owning it.
actual results may vary
Not sure what you mean
Rule of thumb and there are always exceptions, land that you live and work on is usually personal property, land that you own but someone else pays you for the privilege of living and working on is private property.
Dude why do people think communism means you can’t own anything. There’s a difference between private and personal properties.
Because the dictionary definitions of those words don’t match the way you’re using them.
I think definition b on private covers what he was talking about
Also merriam Webster is not the end all be all of how language is used
belonging to or concerning an individual person, company, or interest
My car “belongs to […] an individual person”, doesn’t it?
A car can not only belong to one person, but it can be operated by one person.
A key distinction I’ve heard is: whether a property has to be collectively operated or can it be individually operated?
Tell that to the kulaks
I’m ashamed to admit I had no idea, until I stumbled upon this video. https://youtu.be/Krl_CUxW14Y
…until the central committee decides that more coal miners are required.
You say that like it’s worse than the current capitalist epidemic of giga corporations pushing independent farmers out of the market to the point of leaving them jobless and forced to sell their farm to them for cheap.
But it’s different when a monopoly/oligopoly does it! Surely… The difference here really is that there is no incentive to decide more coal miners are required, whereas our shitty version of capitalism absolutely pushes for companies to fuck over competitors any way possible. It makes it near impossible for small businesses to stand up to established ones with all the resources.
“Fuck over competitors” or “be more competitive”? Competition is an important feature of capitalism that has lead capitalist countries to the highest standards of living in the world.
What kind of competition though? Competing over how little I pay my workers might temporarily boost the standard of living in my own country if I offshore labor, but it seems to turn the standard of living into a ponzi scheme. Where one needs to continually find a cheaper source of labor to maintain the quality of life.
Employers compete for labourers, so they have to raise wages to attract employers in tight labour markets. Offshoring has been going on for decades but it’s slowing down as developing countries are becoming more wealthy (ie: China)
Right now the UAW is going on strike for those higher wages. CEO of Ford says those wages will bankrupt them. Is he telling the truth?
Not to mention that the whole idea behind the Fed raising interest rates and “cooling off the economy” is to raise unemployment, lower employee bargaining power, and therefore keep wages low.
Removed by mod
Well someone has to dig the tunnel beneath the reactor core…
I mean technically, you could have a farm if you worked the entire farm by yourself (personal vs private property).
Or they could share ownership of that farm with others that also work on it AKA a non-profit co-op 🤷
And technically that means you’re producing on that farm which makes it private property.
Removed by mod
Lol, sure.
That’s not really how it works
I’m sorry, are you implying that private ownership of a means of production (in this case, farm land) is acceptable in a socialist economy?
What I never quite understand/know is where internet based services land. If I run a cloud based storage company / web design company or such, the servers are on my personal property and therefore should be considered allowed. Where does that start becoming non “personal.”
It’s like charging someone to park their ideas/data on my personal property. Which I imagine would be considered private property instead. Where is the nuanced line?
Anyone care to explain?
We’re communicating using the fediverse. I can use my own private instance to connect, but in my case I am using a “collective” instance. While capitalism sees the Lemmy Blahaj as a “private enterprise”, it is functionally more akin to a free associative collective where members can take their content with them.
I would say part of the confusion is because our technology has evolved in a capitalist context, collectivism isn’t the default state of being so the solutions made cater towards (corporate) private ownership.
Only if you keep all the stuff you produce
Oh cool, socialism is when you own a means of production but only keep some of the produced goods.
If you keep more than you need, yes. Socialism is not about hoarding wealth especially in the form of necessary goods.
Ok, thanks for clarifying that the internet still has no idea what socialism is.
How is private ownership of farmland socialism?
Good question.
Who gets to decide how much I need? Some juche thug in the capital wearing a bunch of fake military ribbons? Sign me up!
IDK, maybe we could decide such things similar to how we’re having this conversation and we’re able to upvote on what’s being said. Totally unprecedented I know.
Do you think there’s voting involved in a command economy?
My brother in Marx, that’s not how any of this works.
Removed by mod
Socialism is when you don’t have to do alienated work. And when noone else has to. Of course the productivity will be higher if you share the means of production with others. But it’s perfectly fine to work on your own too and harvest the fruit of your work. As you know, nobody gets rich by his own hands work, but you can get along. Capitalist exploitation starts when other people work for you and when you take the added value for your own benefits.
Wrong. Personal property is owned by an individual person. Private property is owned by corporations/ capital. It’s impossible for one to magically change into the other.
Nah
Under a capitalist legal framework yes, but hear me out, it’s possible to redefine laws and is really what this debate is about.
I’ve never understood how this is supposed to be some big own to communism. You’d still refer to it as “my farm,” even as I refer to the community where I live as “my city” and the jobs I’ve worked to benefit some capitalist bozo as “my job.” This is even worse than Ben Shapiro popping out of a well. In many ways, I think I’d feel more ownership as part of a community vs. the facade of “private property.”
This particular thing was actually tried by the Soviets. Farms were considered excesses of kulaks. Kolhos (collective “farm”) was the replacement.
And yes, it was possible to say “my kolhoz” like people say “my city”, good point. Even if “our kolhoz” was a lot more accepted, since it emphasizes how collective it is.
It is also possible to feel personal affinity to collectively owned space.The difference between usually implied individual “my farm” and collective “my farm” is of course in the governance.
Collective ownership may end up being governed by ineffective unaccountable and irresponsible “people representatives”. E.g. deciding that genetics is a capitalist plot, and planting corn everywhere is the solution to all problems (both cases actually happened on a massive scale).
The result is not very different from what ineffective unaccountable and irresponsible large capitalist landowners do.
Both systems disenfranchise the disadvantaged ones, since decisions can practically never be completely unanimous.
So it’s good if you agree with the party line, but if not - violent suppression comes, no teaching on the farm.
That’s where the feeling of “my farm” breaks down. On a private farm you have a lot more options before you are lost.I get the challenges with governance in capitalism-turining-feodalism which we have now in many cases.
But I do not get it why people imagine that full collective ownership is a good and sustainable alternative.None of this is a critique of ideologies like syndicalism and anarcho-communism, so it’s still a pretty ignorant meme that conflates Soviet communism with all forms of communism.
None of this disproves what people like Peter Kropotkin and Emma Goldman were writing about, whose worldviews do not disenfranchise such groups.
I also heartily disagree with your take about private farms. The options you think you have with “private property” are a scam.
Most early Bolshevik policies were more situational than ideological. The main priorities were to repel threats and industrialize as quickly as possible. They expected to be crushed by industrialized capitalist powers unless they reached parity.
And to refute OP again, the Maoist Revolution lead to a near equal redistribution of land among the peasantry.
It’s my farm too. We all own farm. Back to work comrade.
Da
For those interested, Dessalines’ “what would be X like under communism” is a helpful aggregated of discussions regarding this: https://dessalines.github.io/essays/socialism_faq.html#what-would-x-be-like-under-communism
Hey! Literal communist propaganda. Honestly, the better thing to do instead of this is just ask someone over 50 who lives or lived in Eastern Europe.
“Did people in the USSR hate their governments?” - https://dessalines.github.io/essays/socialism_faq.html#did-the-citizens-of-the-soviet-union-dislike-their-government
“Did the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries have functioning democracies?” - https://dessalines.github.io/essays/socialism_faq.html#did-the-soviet-union-and-the-warsaw-pact-nations-have-functioning-democracies
It’s also interesting how people who’s 50, who would have been around 18 when the USSR collapsed or their country seceeded and would have spent their entire adulthood and potentially a part of their teenhood bearing the shockwaves rocking every part of their country under the newly established capitalism (their supposed liberation and salvation and who their new governments claimed would fix literally everything and make them not miserable anymore) that nearly destroyed plenty of Eastern European countries, are overwhelmingly against the USSR, but the trend goes to far more favorable of the USSR the older you get. I’m sure it’s just nostalgia though, the oldest people are just behind on the times and their opinions don’t count.
Edit: I fixed a miscalculation I made regarding how old people were when the USSR collapsed. My bad.
If capitalism destroyed Eastern Europe, it’s news to Eastern Europe
The USSR collapsed in 1991 so you would be 18 then if you’re 50 now. It very much depends on where in the USSR you were, the countries resisting their imperialism got the worse of it. In the baltics most older folks lost family or friends to the occupation so their views on it aren’t actually favourable, especially if they remember the time before occupation.
Would Chinese people tell you they hate their government? Is Chinese authoritarianism a good thing just because the people within China don’t complain?
Most don’t, supported by a Harvard study of all things, not the CPC or Chinese media: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/
Harvard even discusses their methods of gathering honest information from locals and how they try to ensure people aren’t lying because they’re afraid of retribution. Surely the most famous and prestigious university in the US would have thought of that.
Damn good read. Thanks
Here there is a cesspit of inexperienced communists. That means you are dreaming of something written in books or explained by other dreamers but haven’t yourself experience the “superior” lifestyle of the “new man”.
I haven’t read all the links in detail but at least the statistics concerning my country are total bullshit. They aren’t faked but the results are misrepresented in a more perverse and I dare to say “comunist way” (meaning the same practices that dominated my country and society for 45 years).
L.E.: it seems my comment hit a sensitive spot. Thank you!
The economically left in Russia are also socially conservative (unlike in most western countries).
Tell that to Ukraine and Kazakstan!
It’s unsurprising that many Russians look back fondly to the time when they had imperial domination over more than a dozen foreign countries, looting them for resources and using them as military puppets.
You said:
ask someone over 50 who lives or lived in Eastern Europe.
Are you backing down on that statement now or are you saying that Russia isn’t in Eastern Europe?
Russia is sometimes included in that, I wasn’t. My apologies for being unclear. Russia is the former imperial center of the Soviet Empire, so they benefited dramatically from the labor and resources of their colonies. They also never adopted the kind of modern democratic capitalism which was a competing ideology to communism during the Cold War, instead adopting a form of fascism, so I thought it was obvious to anyone that when making the comparison between capitalism and communism in Eastern Europe, a good faith participant in a discussion would look at Bulgaria, Poland, East Germany, etc.
Silly of me the think that someone who lived in Russia during the USSR would know what it’s like to live under communism
When you’re contrasting communism and capitalism, it’s strange to do it by asking someone in a fascist kleptocracy whether they miss being at the heart of a massive empire
Russia is about the only former communist nation which is worse off now, excepting perhaps Ukraine - blame Russia for that, too - and it’s because they’re Russia, not because they’re ex communists.
Arguments about the definitions of Communism or Property aside - yes, my farm. As in, the one I work on. The possessive pronoun, despite the name, sometimes connotes association rather than ownership - I do not own my school, my country, my street or (despite what Republicans might wish) my wife.
No. You’ll probably be assigned a job that’s required to be done for the good of society.
It blows my mind the people who think, “after the revolution I’m going to be a dog walker and bake dog treats!” When in reality they will probably die in a labor camp.
Maybe not die in a labor camp, but they won’t be doing what they expected to do, or even wanted to do.
If they don’t have any particular skill, they’ll probably end up being crop pickers or some shit because we really need those.
Basically very similar to capitalism, but they would probably have a better quality of life overall.
Hahahahahahahaha omg… you can’t be this ignorant. You’re joking, right?
Seeing as how in most markets you can’t exactly do what you want for a living (or even close), or acquire the skills because they’re behind a steep pay wall, and the only employment you can find is very limited in scope to what the community wants, what’s the difference? Most jobs might as well be issued in the mail.
Socialism vs communism be like
43 comments
Guys, it’s a joke.
But jokes spreading misconceptions deserve to be adressed accordingly.
Removed by mod
Indeed, that’s what I am arguing for
And remember that communism is the ownership of the means of productions by the workers, so as long as you work there, it can be your farm in an owning way too
220 comments
No shit.
End goal; you will own nothing, and you’ll be happy. Also work harder and don’t advance.
Isn’t that kind of where the current system is inching towards anyways? Rent, subscriptions, bullshit jobs and all that.
Communism is when you own nothing lol
No it isn’t. Communism eliminates private property. E.G. Land ownership. (You lease land from the state)
It does not get rid of personal property. You’re still allowed to own things. A phone, a car, books, anything that is movable; pretty much anything except land and maybe buildings.
I’m not even a fan of communism but this is just an ignorant misconception.
Whoosh
So in communism individuals own the means of production? Otherwise the farm is owned by the government.
Get that shit out of here bub. Everybody knows that communism is when capitalists exploit you and steal all your hard-earned money so you stay poor while they keep raking in record profits.
Hey wait! That’s capitalism!
deleted by creator
Just as communism has been proven to fail in the past so is capitalism. It has been warped to something terrible for the common worker. I think this communism thing is just a way for people to vent their frustrations with the current system. Honestly as long as their is a corruptible person in charge no system will work as intended. And unfortunately everyone is corruptible.
Idk man modern life is better than life in any past civilization
Capitalism with a social safety net may have flaws but it’s better than anything else ever tries
Modern life in wealthy capitalist countries is subsidized by massive wealth extraction from the global south.
Is that why world poverty rates are quickly declining
that’s pretty much only happening in China
It’s even going down in Africa
