You must log in or # to comment.
Someone should replace “Build Community” with “Build Guillotines”
Let’s not say anything. They create circumstances that ensure their payments.
Workers have to understand what the oligarchs do so that workers can create structures that ensure that workers receive what they deserve.
No? If there was no hospital CEO there’d still be a need for healthcare and people to provide it. Same goes with everything.
The CEO is a worker, just paid enough to betray their comrades. The oligarchs do other things.
Building community is being in bed with a laptop? Humanity is doomed.
Who would’ve thought that chronically ill people can contribute to society more than billionaire leeches
You don’t know the conditions of that person. As an example, I’m organizing my local community through social media to go to this Sunday’s protest in Madrid against high rent prices. I found this local community through social media.
But hur durr! Who gives you the money to do all these things? HaVe YoU sAiD ThAnKyOu?!
I’m still new. Doesn’t /c/Socialism have a policy against brainwashed edgy kids?
Lemmy.ml is more lax with moderation than its haters tend to think.
plants do all the growing thus all the food should belong to plants
There is an admission tucked away here, that the capitalist treats the worker like a consumable good of the type you’d extract from plants.
yeah i think they treat the worker’s labor output like the fruits of the plants
Capitalist objections to socialism always end up being more of an indictment of capitalism than socialism. It’s hilariously ironic.
*takes a rip off a bong*
wait i have a picture for u
although i don’t get how that’s related to my comment
wait wait wait after thinking about it for several minutes, i got it. it’s because plants don’t have a consciousness so nothing can belong to plants. however i’d like to interject that a similar situation arises with children who aren’t considered able to make their own decisions in many situations so others make them for them, however the decision must always be in the interest of the child. likewise, one could argue that while humans hold the plant’s output, they must use it in the interest of the plant.
I don’t understand whether you’re comparing plants to humans or workers to plants.
thanks for sharing a visual representation of your process
actually yeah, being high can be a surprisingly good source of getting new ideas. they don’t always have to make sense at first, but they get filtered after getting sober.
if you want to be a good writer, you should give it a try i think. or are you strictly anti-drugs?
I think people should do whatever works for them.
I think OP specifically should stop though.
Clearly, OP didn’t follow their own advice there. When you get high and go, dude plants are just like workers, you really should revisit that thought sober. 🤣
Careful about stuff like this. The word “oligarch” always presents some liberal conditions by distancing the fundamental issue of private property from attention. Middle-class people are integral to this system because they have a vested material interest in maintaining property as well as the violence necessary for it to exist; they aren’t “oligarchs” any more than the thousands of multi-millionaires are.
It is also contradictory to socialism to attribute systemic inequities exclusively to the actions of select individuals, not a system of power organized around property.
Edit: I’m seriously disappointed by the amount of uneducated mansplaining going on here, I won’t be responding to any more comments from this community.
In general, I’d argue the correct way to look at this would be from class interest perspective. What it really comes down to is whether your labor is the primary source of your income or whether it is your capital. If you’re in the former category then you’re a worker and you have common interest with other workers. If you’re in the latter then your interests are directly opposed to those of the working class.
Greetings, Comrade!
I would also like to offer a slight clarification: not “oligarchs,” but the bourgeoisie; not “workers,” but the proletariat. That is, if we are following Lenin.
Do not forget that, under a capitalist system, the proletariat consists not only of workers and peasants but also of the intelligentsia—doctors, teachers, researchers, engineers, and the like.
The middle class, too, is for the most part part of the proletariat.
The bourgeoisie, meanwhile, enriches itself through “surplus value.” Were it not for this surplus value, then—firstly—all goods would be twice a scheaper, and—secondly—all global financial institutions would be abolished as unnecessary.
Greetings, and agreed on all points.
I told you recently that the understanding of socialism in the West—and my own understanding of it—are two different poles.
That guy is very smart and well-read, but what he says… really surprises me.
When I read his first post, I didn’t even understand which camp he belonged to… because a person cannot defend oligarchs while being a socialist. To me, that is nonsense!
What you’ll find is that understanding of socialism in the west is largely shaped by the CIA, meaning that there is no actual understanding.
Why was that guy removed?
It doesn’t seem like he said anything outrageous.
I’m talking about that guy up above who got offended and doesn’t want to reply.
oh you can check the modlog, lemmy is pretty transparent about it unlike reddit https://lemmy.ml/modlog/14681?page=1&actionType=All&userId=23129142
To be honest, I read through a massive amount of text there—it’s all so impeccably written, yet the essence of it keeps slipping through my fingers… It reminds me a lot of an LSD trip… ))) “The truth is out there”—just like in The X-Files… )))
Mind you, I don’t mean to offend anyone; I am, after all, just an ignoramus… complete with a beard, felt boots, and a balalaika… reeking of stale vodka.
Please, don’t judge me too harshly! )))
This is not a very usable understanding. How do you make sense of people whose labour is the primary source of their income and who also have a material interest in the maintenance of private property, such as home-owning middle-class people. Material interests aren’t as simple as “workers for workers, owners for owners,” it describes the intersecting and even contradictory ways in which people navigate this system to achieve or maintain their own level of material security. Similarly, the kind of class analysis you just described is bereft of any explanations for how race, gender, sexuality, indigeneity, or ability intersect in class dynamics; there is a reason we don’t do it this way.
Those who have labor as their primary source of income, but own capital and thus desire a maintenance of capitalism, are petite bourgeoisie.
whose labour is the primary source of their income and who also have a material interest in the maintenance of private property, such as home-owning middle-class people.
Private property in the socialist context doesn’t refer to home ownership (unless its being used for landlording). It means ownership of means of the production, exploiting labor power. You can consider it synonymous with “absentee property”.
There are certainly some workers who earn some from their labour, and some from exploitation of others labor, but one is usually dominant. And of course in the long term, the trend of centralization of production means that these small-scale exploiters (petit-bourgeios) are eventually pushed out by bigger fish, and have to become workers themselves (called proletarianization).
How do you make sense of people whose labour is the primary source of their income and who also have a material interest in the maintenance of private property, such as home-owning middle-class people.
As I understand it—judging by the name of this community—we are discussing socialism.
Under socialism, there is no middle class. In the USSR, a manual laborer earned a higher salary than an engineer or a doctor—unless, of course, the latter was a professor.
If a worker performed their job well, they received an apartment free of charge.
As for what you are writing about socialism—viewing it through the prism of capitalist terminology—it strikes me as, at the very least, both strange and incomprehensible.
Removed by mod
This isn’t a LARP community, theory and practice mutually reinforce each other. You cannot effectively practice without theory, and theory without practice loses its grasp on reality.
How’s this pragmatic action been working out for y’all. Last I looked western countries are speedrunning fascism at this point.
Removed by mod
Pragmatic action is not possible without socialist scholarship. You can’t take effective action without understanding how systems of power form in the first place, and how to organize effectively to combat them. Understanding class interests is at the core of that. How anybody could think they could skip understanding the problems before solving them is beyond me. The results in western organizing really do speak for themselves though.
who also have a material interest in the maintenance of private property, such as home-owning middle-class people.
Vladimir Lenin regarded private ownership of the means of production—land, factories, and plants—as the primary source of exploitation and social inequality. He was convinced that it had to be abolished and transferred into the hands of the state (as public ownership) in order to build a classless socialist society.
Removed by mod
Why is Lukács relevant? Why not Lenin? Further, Lenin was Slavic, and very much not considered white at the time of writing (and still not today, depending on who you ask). Also not sure why you are so condescending towards others, that’s not any kind of way to teach someone something (regardless of merit or lack thereof).
and anarchist scholarship
In my view, this is largely utopian—which is probably why Lenin abolished the party. That said, I do like Kropotkin’s ideas; in a certain sense, they resonate with the principles of socialism.
On that note, I’d recommend that you not take the writing of a white man from over 100 years ago as your only understanding of socialist
I know you won’t read my reply, but I’ll answer anyway: it’s very simple. Lenin is the only person in history who successfully implemented socialism in practice—there is no one else like him. Stalin was Lenin’s successor.
Lenin and not Lukács
I studied Lenin in school.
I haven’t read Lukács. He wasn’t popular here. Back then, people here were still studying Marx and Engels.
Lenin and not Lukács if they’re so into Leninism? Have you ever asked yourself that?
Google just came to my rescue—I had absolutely no idea who Lukács was.
“György (Georg) Lukács was not studied in the USSR as an independent thinker due to his affiliation with ‘Western Marxism,’ his departure from the dogmas of Soviet historical materialism, and his open criticism of Stalinism. His ideas were considered dangerous to the established Soviet ideological doctrine.”
Do you understand now that socialism in the West and socialism in the USSR are two entirely different things?
Most socialists I engage with are interested in **pragmatic action **
Are they keen on thinking about private property and “the fundamental issue of private property from attention?”
Am I understanding you correctly?
Wouldn’t a home be personal property, not private? 401ks might be a better example?
This is my first time engaging with this community (I think) and it is surprising to see comments like this. Home-ownership was used here because it references real, commodified material resources (land, shelter, etc.) which is only able to be owned by someone through specific social and property relations. While a 401k might be another example of private (I’m not sure what distinction you’re referencing, but it certainly isn’t materialist) property, as in a material thing that individuals claim exclusive access to, its dependency on financialization and abstraction from material value makes it a bad example for how property ownership specifically functions in relation to material resources and social/political systems.
haha you’re so annoying. Jesus… You know you can block entire instances on here right?
It seemed very simple under true socialism: in exchange for your conscientious labor, you received an apartment for free. You could live in it—and after you, your grandchildren could live there, and so on—but you could not sell the apartment, because it was state property.
“True” socialism isn’t a thing, a system is either socialist or it is not, and socialism has many various characteristics depending on the material conditions the society building socialism is found in.
I would put it differently: there should be only one true form of socialism, but the methods for achieving it may vary.
As for my own experience: my father—who held a Ph.D.—earned a lower salary than the father of one of my classmates, who was a highly skilled fitter.
And I understand perfectly well that you cannot even begin to imagine that such a thing is possible. Yes, salaries were relatively modest—the idea being not to let money corrupt people. But you had free healthcare, free education, and a free apartment; and the utility bill for a 70-square-meter apartment—like the one I had—came to… $3 a month. Plus, a free one-month summer vacation at a sanatorium somewhere in Crimea.
Places where the oligarchs’ massive mansions had been confiscated and converted into holiday retreats for the people.
Now you understand what kind of socialism I am talking about. I know of no other kind—and I have no desire to know of any other!
Careful about stuff like this.
We are not speaking of liberalism; we are speaking of the bourgeoisie, which is a parasite on society.
Yes, someone else here clarified that this community is more of a roleplaying thing. I didn’t know that before commenting.
English is not my native language. I would appreciate it if you could be more specific. What do you mean by “role-playing games”?
Roleplaying games are a form of entertainment where people will act in the role of some fictional character, typically in a fantasy world, with others; like Dungeons and Dragons.
My use of it here is both as a joke and a genuine expression of disappointment in the lack of real engagement with socialist scholarship and ideas I’ve seen in this brief interaction.
Real socialist scholarship is when you don’t know the difference between personal and private property
“fictional character, typically in a fantasy world, with others; like Dungeons and Dragons.”
I already mentioned that I am not a native English speaker. I don’t know what “in a fantasy world, with others; like Dungeons and Dragons” means.
" in the lack of real engagement with socialist scholarship and ideas"
Then again, I don’t understand what—in your view, or in the opinion of your socialist friends—constitutes “socialist scholarship and ideas.” I would be very interested to hear this, particularly as someone who lived under actual socialism and remembers perfectly well what it is and what it looks like in practice.
And please also clarify: what exactly was it about my words that made you laugh? Even if I am a “role-player”—as you put it—I don’t mind.
There’s a spy in the base
Sounds good but who’s going to organize all the infrastructure that makes all these jobs possible in a functioning society? The people? They’re too busy doing all the work…
as a young man, my dad worked as a mechanic in a small co op worker owned garage. Each week, the mechanics traded off managerial duties and were able to handle their business without much trouble. my dad had many jobs since then, but hes said that was probably the best job hes ever had.
Assuming this is serious: There’s a slew of jobs that aren’t part of commodity production, but still vital: organization, administration, management, transportation, distribution, maintenance, point-of-sale workers, etc. They make up a smaller proportion of workers, and are paid out of the surplus value created by the commodity producers, because they’re still 100% necessary for production.
Well put, but at that point is it even surplus value? Loosely speaking, if they perform necessary labor in the supply chain, and they’re paid a fair rate (money to live on, not get rich on), wouldn’t their wage count as part of the cost of production?
It’s an issue that Marxist economists debate about. We have ways of calculating the costs for machine depreciation (so we can factor maintenance into surplus value), but it can get really difficult, or is sometime impossible, to calculate things like the value that a transport worker adds.
Meanwhile for commodity / direct producers, surplus value is an easy calculation: worker value added - wage paid.
There’s also the issue that transportation and point of sale workers are in different economic sectors, in many different countries, which has implications for their place in the class struggle. John Smith’s I imperialism in the 21st century gets into some of these.
I think one of the better explanations is to view production along the entire supply chain as the production of the commodity, not just in the moment of a factory. Socially necessary functions all require socially necessary labor, and this amalgum of socially necessary labor and raw materials forms the commodity. A commodity is not just a commodity in itself, it is a commodity that has been transported, advertised, and sold. It does get more complicated to calculate, but you can also break it down into its constituent elements.
It’s an issue that Marxist economists debate about.
Comrade, surplus value has absolutely nothing to do with current production costs.
Surplus value is the capitalist’s profit—nothing more.
According to Marx, surplus value is the value created by the unpaid labor of a wage worker—over and above the value of their labor power—and appropriated gratuitously by the capitalist. It is the hidden source of all forms of unearned income: entrepreneurial profit, commercial markup, bank interest, and ground rent.
In the USSR, there was no surplus value whatsoever; any “surplus” consisted solely of taxes earmarked for social benefits and similar expenditures.
Consequently, goods in the USSR cost a mere fraction of what the very same goods cost in the West.
Surplus value is the very mechanism by which capitalists grow rich—it is money out of thin air.
Surplus value is the capitalist’s profit—nothing more.
Not quite. Price fluctuates around value, profit can come from discrepancies between price and value, or from the raising of socially necessary labor time due to sudden events (like a factory blowing up) and thus the price of unsold commodities rises. Marx made it clear that supply and demand do cover each other as they pull towards one another, and thus there is a “value” they gravitate towards, but that profit can be made via avenues not related to surplus value (though not as a rule, always temporary).
As for the USSR, there was appropriated surplus, it was just redirected towards development by the working classes, and in the interests of the working classes. This is very much a surplus, even if it isn’t appropriated privately. This is important, because an individual worker will not be entitled to the “full value of their labor,” it is the working classes that will be, and thus can distribute from ability to need.
This isn’t correct. Production costs must be subtracted to calculate surplus value.
Surplus value is “worker value added”. To get worker value added, you must subtract out the cost of materials, etc.
In the USSR, there was no surplus value whatsoever; any “surplus” consisted solely of taxes earmarked for social benefits and similar expenditures.
This is also incorrect. Socialism and the USSR has / had a surplus, its just that its directed and controlled by working-class political decision-making, and not by private capitalists. It may direct that surplus into defense, research, social services, etc. It has a different form than capitalist surplus value.
Here’s some vids on this:
Production costs must be subtracted
Apologies—it translates some of the economic terms differently than I intended, but I hope you’ll be able to make sense of it.
You are referring to the cost of goods sold (or production cost): This represents the sum of all expenses (materials, rent, salaries, logistics) incurred by a business to produce and sell its goods or services. This metric determines pricing strategies as well as the size of the final profit—which is calculated as the difference between total revenue and the cost of goods sold.
Added value is the difference between the price at which a company sells a finished product and the cost of all the materials and third-party services consumed in its creation.
Essentially, added value constitutes the profit earned by the business owner. This is under capitalism.
"Socialism and the USSR has / had a surplus, its just that its directed and controlled by working-class political decision-making, and not by private capitalists. "
Yes, that is exactly what I told you in my previous post—you just misunderstood me. Don’t forget, Comrade, that I am currently speaking in a non-native language; this is especially tricky when dealing with scientific and technical terminology, as Google Translate can sometimes produce awkward translations. My command of English is strictly conversational… and even then, I rely on a dictionary… :)
Yes, that is precisely what I meant to convey: in the USSR, there was no surplus value generated for a private capitalist. Surplus value did exist, but within a socialist context—it was allocated to social programs, salaries for doctors, teachers, civil servants, and the like. However, this was not the same kind of exploitative surplus value; consequently, comparable goods in the USSR cost several times less than they did in the West—particularly essential goods. And yes, the state regulated all of this.
You are, however, misunderstanding what “surplus” meant in the USSR. As you know, the USSR operated under a planned economy. A surplus was defined as whatever was produced in excess of the plan. It occurred when an enterprise operated more efficiently than projected, resulting in a “residual”—an excess. In fact, this is precisely what undermined the economy back then, because that scoundrel Khrushchev “reformed” the Stalin-era economic system—a move that subsequently led to a host of problems!
Incidentally, my mother graduated from the Kyiv University of Economics and worked as an economic engineer at an aircraft manufacturing plant during the 1970s. Her job involved managing the plant’s economic planning.
“Here’s some vids on this:”
That gave me a chuckle, Comrade!..)))
I hope you don’t mind that I read Platoshkin in the original?.. )))
By the way—in case you didn’t know—Putin nearly threw Platoshkin in prison for inciting the people to revolution. Platoshkin miraculously got off with a suspended sentence.
Platoshkin is a very bold character. However, I disagree with him on certain points.
Platoshkin is a diplomat; he worked in the West back during the Soviet era. He possesses a wealth of experience and knowledge—he is a professor, after all—but in my view, he goes a bit too far at times. Or, as you folks like to put it: idealism.
No, lemmy told me those are all bourgeoisie and go under the guillotine.
Who did?
There’s like 5 examples in the comments of this post…
Link to one.
Ctrl+F is your friend.
Administration. There’s a huge difference between administrative labor, and entitlement to the fruits of labor via private ownership of the means of production and distribution.
On the off chance this is serious.
The government.
In a capitalist society, this is impossible to implement. The government is lobbied by capitalists whose goal is their own profit.
The government is those very oligarchs.
In a capitalist society, this is impossible to implement.
Obviously but I wasn’t talking about capitalist society.
Are you saying that in China, the oligarchs are socialist, while in the West, they are capitalist?
No, Comrade—I am referring to the kind of socialism you are talking about: the kind of socialism that can coexist with capital.
I already gave you my answer in the previous post—having already realized you were from China, based on the characters in your username. You should understand what I meant.
I’m not @QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml but I’ll try to reply anyway.
In China, there are capitalist owners, some of them immensely wealthy. However, the government is not controlled by them, but by the working class through the Communist Party.
There’s a reason why China routinely gives death sentences to corrupt politicians, why it’s the manufacturer of 95% of the world’s supply of solar panels despite the existence of oil oligarchs on Earth, why housing prices go down instead of up, and why it was interested in and capable of uplifting 800mn people from poverty into a relatively comfortable life.
In China, there are capitalist owners, some of them immensely wealthy. However, the government is not controlled by them, but by the working class through the Communist Party.
There’s a reason why China routinely gives death sentences to corrupt politicians, why it’s the manufacturer of 95% of the world’s supply of solar panels despite the existence of oil oligarchs on Earth, why housing prices go down instead of up, and why it was interested in and capable of uplifting 800mn people from poverty into a relatively comfortable life.
I was recently banned from Reddit—they really don’t like people like me over there. Anyway: there was a very extensive discussion on the matter. But I wasn’t banned because of China.
looks at the comunity name Mmh socialism…
Sorry, I’m getting confused here. To me—based on what I’ve read here—the concept of Western socialism looks more like reformed capitalism than socialism.
Western socialism
Good thing I’m a Chinese communist and not a western socialist.
Wow, you’re a member of the CPC. I envy you, Comrade… )))
I am incredibly impressed by how much China has flourished economically over the last couple of decades.
But how has this impacted the lives of the Chinese proletariat?
It seems to me that the life of a worker in Shanghai is no different from the life of a worker in, say, Moscow. As the saying goes: spot the three differences.
Do you know what Lenin was the first to promise the workers in order to get them to join him in the uprising? Do you know what issue sparked the world’s first workers’ strike—held on May 1st—in the USA?
That’s right, Comrade: the eight-hour workday.
And you, as a true Chinese communist, must surely know that every single Western socialist regards China as the gold standard of socialism—the belief that China took the correct path, having learned from the mistakes of the USSR, whose system proved unviable… indeed, fundamentally flawed from the very start.
Let me guess: you think so, too.
In your view, how does a Chinese socialist differ from a Western socialist? I’m not talking about pseudo-socialists here; I’m talking about true socialists—those who actually read Marx. What was your reason for drawing such a sharp dividing line in your post?
Reformed capitalism is, in fact, not socialism, you are probably thinking of social democracy
No, Comrade, I am speaking of the Western understanding of Marx.
Reformed Capitalism, Social Democracy, Western Communism, Eurocommunism… Same fucking bad shit. There are nuances, all fluff.
Either go Communism or go home. The West is a failure.
Capitalism is defined by private ownership of businesses.
A socialist business isn’t controlled by a private owner (or major shareholders), it’s controlled by its workers or by the government (or a mix of both). No one sits at the top and gets to award themself a massive chunk of the revenue just because their name is on the deed, so to speak. That’s the difference.
You cannot simply slice up elements of an economy and designate them to be capitalist or socialist in a vacuum, what matters is the nature of the society itself, the class character of the state and the principal form of ownership. That’s why nationalizing industry in capitalism is not necessarily an advancement towards socialism, and privatization in socialism is not necessarily an advancement towards capitalism.
Capitalism is defined by private ownership of businesses.
There is another name for this: private ownership of the means of production.
The means of production constitute the aggregate of all material resources used to create goods and services. They comprise two main components: the instruments of labor (the tools and machinery used to work) and the subjects of labor (the raw materials and inputs worked upon).
This concept also encompasses wage labor. Under socialism, a private individual is not permitted to hire another person for employment.
However, during the Stalin era, private enterprise did, in fact, exist. These took the form of artels—small workshops, typically employing up to ten people, that manufactured light industrial goods. There were tens of thousands of such artels across the USSR. Yet, within these artels, both the workers and the managers participated on equal terms; specifically, the director of the artel was re-elected annually by the collective membership. Artels in the USSR produced items such as radio receivers, televisions, children’s toys, and similar goods.
Hey, are you a Russian communist? I happened to see your “)))” and a few references to Stalin and Moscow, as well as some good knowledge about stuff like the artels (which I hadn’t heard about until now). If so, I’d be very interested in asking you some questions if you don’t mind :)
You mean… the oligarchs?
No, the government. “The government” as you likely imagine it is in fact made up of 2 components.
-
Is the government: The organ of administration and organisation necessary in all advanced societies.
-
Is the state: The organised arm of class rule. This exists so long as class antagonisms exist.
“The oligarchs” (the bourgeoisie) are an issue due to the fact that in capitalist countries they control the state and rule over the other classes. The aim of communists is to seize control of the state and then wield it to repress and proletarianise the bourgeoisie until only a single class remains. Once there is only one class, the proletariat, and all the means of production are publicly owned the state withers away (ceases to exist) as there are no longer any class antagonisms, however the government as an organ of administration and organisation remains as it is necessary to oversee and organise all of the publicly owned goods and services.
No, the government. “The government” as you likely imagine it is in fact made up of 2 components. Thank you for enlightening me, Comrade…
Is the government: The organ of administration and organisation necessary in all advanced societies.
Yes, that is exactly what I said: for a government to function effectively in the sphere of social development, the dictatorship of the proletariat is absolutely essential!
The right to vote on state decisions belongs to representatives drawn from the people—those elected at the local level. The right to a real vote. That is how it worked in the USSR during the 1930s.
The only catch—as you well know—is that in the 1980s, the clause regarding the “dictatorship of the proletariat” vanished from the CPC Charter…
“The oligarchs” (the bourgeoisie) are an issue due to the fact that in capitalist countries they control the state and rule over the other classes.
And in socialist countries?.. )))
The aim of communists is to seize control of the state and then wield it to repress and proletarianise the bourgeoisie until only a single class remains
It was an agonizing process; to achieve this, the USSR had to pass through “War Communism.”
Fantasy world stuff. Sounds great in theory but when throughout human history has it ever worked?
Socialism has worked in every country it has been established in. They have all had their own problems, but these generally pale in comparison to the fundamental structural contradictions in capitalism, and have been some of the fastest developing countries in history.
China, Vietnam, the DPRK, Cuba are all in the process and have benefited massively from the workers having seized the state. The USSR also benefited massively before it’s illegal dissolution and the people suffered greatly when they lost control of the state. It’s only fantasy if you’re a massively ignorant pillock.
Modern capitalist economies are already massively centralized and planned – see “The People’s Republic of Walmart.”
Socialist countries fail because they are embargoed, which stifles their economy, which then stifles their legitimacy.
Exactly my point. It doesn’t work. Humans are the problem that will not allow a society to flourish. By nature the worst will always rise to the top.
This is vibes-based nihilism, not materialist analysis.
Desperately trying to justify your refusal to contribute to anything with boring fatalism. By that logic, we’re all gonna die so why bother commenting?
By that logic, we should still live under monarchies today.
People are not inherently evil. Your pessimism was indoctrinated into you, and you can be undoctrinated from that wrong view.
-
Dictatorship of the proletariat
Me. Elect me!
