444
We'll get capitalism right! Just one more spin
(lemmy.zip)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2025
444 points (100.0% liked)
Lefty Memes
6145 readers
70 users here now
An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the "ML" influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.
Agitprop (I.E. everything that would be more fitting on a poster than a meme) goes here.
Serious posts, news, and discussion go in c/Socialism.
If you are new to socialism, you can ask questions and find resources over on c/Socialism101.
Please don't forget to help keep this community clean by reporting rule violations, updooting good contributions and downdooting those of low-quality!
Rules
0. Only post socialist memes
That refers to funny image macros and means that generally videos and screenshots are not allowed. Exceptions include explicitly humorous and short videos, as well as (social media) screenshots depicting a funny situation, joke, or joke picture relating to socialist movements, theory, societal issues, or political opponents. Examples would be the classic case of humorous Tumblr or Twitter posts/threads. (and no, agitprop text does not count as a meme. Please post agitprop here)
0.5 [Provisional Rule] Use alt text or image descriptions to allow greater accessibility
(Please take a look at our wiki page for the guidelines on how to actually write alternative text!)
We require alternative text (from now referred to as "alt text") to be added to all posts/comments containing media, such as images, animated GIFs, videos, audio files, and custom emojis.
EDIT: For files you share in the comments, a simple summary should be enough if they’re too complex.
We are committed to social equity and to reducing barriers of entry, including (digital) communication and culture. It takes each of us only a few moments to make a whole world of content (more) accessible to a bunch of folks.
When alt text is absent, a reminder will be issued. If you don't add the missing alt text within 48 hours, the post will be removed. No hard feelings.
0.5.1 Style tip about abbreviations and short forms
When writing stuff like "lol" and "iirc", it's a good idea to try and replace those with their all caps counterpart
- ofc => OFC
- af = AF
- ok => OK
- lol => LOL
- bc => BC
- bs => BS
- iirc => IIRC
- cia => CIA
- nato => Nato (you don't spell it when talking, right?)
- usa => USA
- prc => PRC
- etc.
Why? Because otherwise (AFAIK), screen readers will try to read them out as actually words instead of spelling them
1. Socialist Unity in the form of mutual respect and good faith interactions is enforced here
Try to keep an open mind, other schools of thought may offer points of view and analyses you haven't considered yet. Also: This is not a place for the Idealism vs. Materialism or rather Anarchism vs. Marxism debate(s), for that please visit c/AnarchismVsMarxism.
2. Anti-Imperialism means recognizing capitalist states like Russia and China as such
That means condemning (their) imperialism, even if it is of the "anti-USA" flavor.
3. No liberalism, (right-wing) revisionism or reactionaries.
That includes so called: Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Dengism, Market Socialism, Patriotic Socialism, National Bolshevism, Anarcho-Capitalism etc. . Anti-Socialist people and content have no place here, as well as the variety of "Marxist"-"Leninists" seen on lemmygrad and more specifically GenZedong (actual ML's are welcome as long as they agree to the rules and don't just copy paste/larp about stuff from a hundred years ago).
4. No Bigotry.
The only dangerous minority is the rich.
5. Don't demonize previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.
We must constructively learn from their mistakes, while acknowledging their achievements and recognizing when they have strayed away from socialist principles.
(if you are reading the rules to apply for modding this community, mention "Mantic Minotaur" when answering question 2)
6. Don't irrationally idolize/glorify previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.
Notable achievements in all spheres of society were made by various socialist/people's/democratic republics around the world. Mistakes, however, were made as well: bureaucratic castes of parasitic elites - as well as reactionary cults of personality - were established, many things were mismanaged and prejudice and bigotry sometimes replaced internationalism and progressiveness.
- Absolutely no posts or comments meant to relativize(/apologize for), advocate, promote or defend:
- Racism
- Sexism
- Queerphobia
- Ableism
- Classism
- Rape or assault
- Genocide/ethnic cleansing or (mass) deportations
- Fascism
- (National) chauvinism
- Orientalism
- Colonialism or Imperialism (and their neo- counterparts)
- Zionism
- Religious fundamentalism of any kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Best economic system ever, they say. Unlike communism, this is a situation where you can say it has been tried many times throughout history.
Communism, in the sense of the future stateless, classless, moneyless society, hasn't been reached, but socialism absolutely has been and exists in several countries today. Communism is necessarily post-socialist.
Agreed. One of many reasons why only idiots believe it's already been proven bad.
To the contrary, socialism has already been proven good, and the foundations of socialism, ie public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy, already work astoundingly well. Communism as the fully collectivized mode of production beyond that has been more affirmed by the existence of socialism.
Ehh... I wouldn't say socialism affirms communism. At least far less than it condemns capitalism.
Nobody currently alive is going to accept private property entering a gray area where if you produce with it, suddenly it's not your property any more.
That's not really how socialism or communism works, though. It isn't a legalistic moral code, but the adoption of collectivized production at a global scale.
It has to work at both scales.
I don't follow. Communism isn't when you ban all private property and punish anyone producing for themselves, but by collectivizing production at a global scale to the point that that's counter-intuitive and can't really be done for profit anyways.
Speak for yourself, there are plenty of people alive that would be fine with there being no more private property. Personal property isn't the same thing, and it's fine producing something with it, there would be tools available to all to rent out or use, what's so wrong with that? In fact tool libraries already exist, as do worker owned co-ops.
Explain to those that don't already understand, and then get the rest of the communists to agree that it doesn't include private property used for work.
As we already said, there would be no more private property, that only exists in a statist, capitalist society.
and as I already said, cery few people currently alive will accept that as a prescription.
Only those strongly invested in capital. But in the end that won't matter, because they will be overthrown.
Edit: Most people will not care because it will not effect their lives in any meaningful way, they'll still be able to make and get things, they just won't be able to lord it over others.
Why do you tankies always say communism has never been tried? Power hungry people exist no matter the system, and so far...as much as the system is rigged, capitalism has brought a lot more people out of poverty than anything else. Communism has been tried countless times, it just ends up not working because power hungry people exist.
I'm by no means in support of communism but I think you're assuming that these systems have been tested in a vacuum. Specifically with regard to communism in the global south where Western capitalist entities act as agents of sabotage in order to secure the people of these nations as a perpetually destitute global underclass. So that their corporations can continue to have access to underpaid labor. Which you and I benefit from in some way shape or form.
And capitalism also exists in a vacuum? Why is a system such as Communism supposedly so great but breaks because of outside influence...odd
Capitalism doesn't stand up to outside pressures inherently.
Yes that's why it's not being used in most of the world
Capitalism predates communism and has spent centuries chewing through human lives to get to it's position of influence today. I refer you to the entirety of the colonial era.
No...no it doesn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_communism
Even marx suggested that it's pretty much the first tried system.
Modern communism (is the age of industrialization) is essentially Marxism which is younger than capitalistic models.
Hunter gatherer societies were egalitarian but its impossible to apply a pre-civilization framework to civilizational societies. So the fact that he referred to it as primitive communism is not an indictment on communism.
Communism as a political movement was introduced by Marx and Engles. Only since then has it been attempted on a nation state level. Prior to this nearly every political and economic system was an autocracy or monarchy where the state administered private land ownership rights to lords. There are very few exceptions to this in civilizational history.
So if we are looking at communism as a political and economic system as can be applied to modern civilizations ie. nation states, it is much younger than capitalism.
No system has really been tested in a vacuum. Some systems have just eirher adapted or endured it
Capitalism is the direct descendant of feudalism, a system that relies on essentially immutable social classes and bonded labor.
The largest elimination of poverty in history was in China, in a socialist economy. If you remove China from the last century, then the idea that poverty is erasing everywhere is proven false immediately.
Even though you're getting shit on with downvotes, you are half right. Communism hasn't been tried before, but it's also very difficult to achieve due to opportunism (or what you call power hunger).
For communism to be achieved, the working class has to take down the dominance, or dictatorship of the capitalist class (also called dictatorship of the proletariat), then productive forces have to be reorganized to produce to satisfy everyone's needs rather than for profit, and then abolish commodity production entirely and replace it with planned economy, distributing goods via labor vouchers or "according to their need" in later stages.
So far we got only to dictatorship of the proletariat (which manifests as state capitalism, not communism as many steps are missing) in USSR, and the Bolsheviks under Lenin were genuinely disciplined, but the country wasn't industrialized, with hundreds of millions of peasants. Can't provide for everyone when theres no factories to build enough stuff in!
However, capitalism and state capitalism breeds opportunism, meaning that if you don't replace it quickly then even under proletariat class control opportunism will rear it's ugly head, as seen in USSR. Of course there's also other factors, but for communism to have a chance to work, it has to happen in an already developed country with international spread so capitalism over and done with quickly.
For communism to work, we need each and every person to not be a greedy bastard under it all. It only takes one greedy bastard to ruin it all, as history has repeatedly shown.
We are but monkeys in trousers. Our survival instincts still rule our behaviours, and until that changes, communism will not work, simple as that.
That's not true, though. Communism, ie a system where production and distribution are fully collectivized and run according to a common plan, doesn't care at all if someone is "greedy," and socialist economies that have begun building towards such a society have proven the opposite of your claims; they've been remarkably effective at achieving positive economic growth while delivering better metrics for the working class than capitalist systems.
If you want, I made an intro Marxist-Leninist reading list, feel free to give it a look. Albert Einstein's Why Socialism? | Audiobook is a good intro!
If it were true that communism was even resistant to the corruption of human greed, it wouldn't end in dictatorship or oligarchy as it does.
Don't misunderstand my position, I deeply wish we weren't such a young species and that we'd developed enough psychologically that we could get past our basic instincts, to see past the immediate short term as a whole, to work collectively for everyone's benefit, including those that will inherit this earth when we become raw materials once again.
However, this is not the case. Look at how easy we are as a species to manipulate, to make think and do what a small subset want us to, for their benefit.
That's because we're still very instinct driven, simple creatures for the most part. Yes, in some cases an individual stands above this definition, but they are categorically not the norm. Until they are, we're led around by our collective basic drives, and that includes making sure us and ours have "enough" , which means taking it, by hook or by crook.
To discount basic human nature when mulling political systems is pure folly.
Socialist countries have not been oligarchial nor dictatorial. They haven't been utopian wonderlands free from any problems either, but they've been dramatically more democratic for the working class than capitalist countries.
I understand your position very well, it's just wrong and based on critical misunderstandings of socialism in theory and in practice. Simple as that. Collectivized production and distribution works very well when it comes to economic growth and satisfying the needs of more people.
I'm not discounting "human nature," you're attributing it as a problem for socialism when that isn't the case. Again, socialism doesn't care if everyone is perfectly moral and upstanding, that has nothing to do with how we run collectivized production. You should familiarize yourself with what leftists are actually talking about before waxing poetic about how there's some fundamental flaw we haven't properly understood, as though we don't hear the same tired arguments day in and day out.
I didn't say socialist, I said communist. You and I are both aware that you know the difference.
I've better things to do than argue with someone relying on such basic bullshit as shifting the goalposts so obviously.
Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society, there has never been a society that has reached that mode of production. There are socialist countries led by communist parties, which is why I answered like I did. Either you're talking about fictional communist societies, or you're referring to socialist countries run by communist parties, so I picked the better-faith option and answered your question with corrected terms.
I'd rather not just dismiss your point outright and take an easy victory by pointing out that you got terminology mixed up, but instead answer your point as you meant it. If that's what you consider "moving the goalpost," then I don't think you were ever interested in discussion to begin with.
You have no idea what you're talking about, try listening and/or reading instead
I read so many discussions that end this way. Is this idea only knowable by completing a long and old book list?
Not particularly old or long but yes if you want to avoid being completely wrong about things you will eventually have to read about those things
Of course. What I'm curious about is why (only?) this particular idea requires that particular format. One can explain some pretty complicated ideas over Lemmy! I can be wrong about frogs, someone tells me how their spots work, but I don't have to read a book about frogs looking for an answer.
Do constituent parts of the idea not make sense individually?
Why bother transcribing the explanation when it already exists in digital format where you can easily access it? If you can read a comment explaining it then you can read a book explaining it. And no this is not the only subject that people on the internet are told to read a book about, it's just the #1 topic people like to play dumb about because there's no rational defense for capitalism
Personally I literally cannot finish an entire book until I'm already interested in the subject. I can look up one specific aspect at a time in the encyclopedia, which has worked really well for me in other fields - including other social sciences and philosophies. Then something sparks and the heavy reading doesn't feel heavy.
I'm interested in human progress in general, but keep being presented with what looks like an imposing wall.
I don't expect you to spend the time and energy explaining whatever part about communism to that dude right here and now. I just wish they were links to lines of a FAQ, or anything that requires less up-front investment. Capitalism defends itself by limiting our time to read volumes of books.
For what it's worth, I've tried to curate and tweak an intro Marxist-Leninist reading list over the last year or so. Section 0a is designed to pitch the case for Marxism-Leninism in as short and concise a manner as I think possible, the rest of the list is for those who actually wish to study in-depth and get a rock-solid understanding of the fundamentals. It isn't an exhaustive list, I'd add Capital and Anti-Dühring for sure as well as some others, but it's thorough and doesn't have any glaring holes.
rofl you think I'm a tankie for shitting on capitalism!?
ahahaha way to broadcast how pitifully tiny your understanding is...
People being lifted out of poverty as an economic test COMPLETELY IGNORES the reality of technological advancement. Way to further demonstrate how you do not know even the major milestones of history, let alone economic history...
The technological advancements were in large part due to the large scale growth of industry under capitalism. Although lots of bloodshed and suffering was involved in the process, and without leftists fighting for reforms, we wouldn't be able to enjoy its fruits today.
The mass availability of the internet, and many other pillars of infrastructure are a result of capitalism. And these developments definitely have increased living standards for the majority of humans, even ones in third world nations (The popular image of a destitute country with rampant poverty is extremely rare these days.)
Capitalism was most responsible for underdeveloping the global south. Europeans genocided the indigenous Americans and needed a large supply of labor, so they used their (at the time) minor technological advantage to trade high-demand commodities exclusively for slaves in Africa. This depressed African development and skyrocketed European development, and this expanded in colonialism.
Capitalism was progressive as compared with feudalism, yes, but it's been socialist economies that have been most responsible of eradicating poverty. If you remove socialist countries, poverty has gone up in the last century.
lol no
So no alternative explanation? You should at least point me to some resources that say otherwise.
I fully acknowledge the wild ecological harm and rising inequality that capitalism has brought with it. However, even Marx had written about the system's capacity for the advancement of industrial technology and productivity.
Centrally planned economies like the ones of the USSR and similar 21st century socialist states do not work. They would never have enabled the vast distribution and rapid development of technology like we see today. Lemmy itself is a product of capitalism.
Lemmy is made by communists.
Propped up by the global hardware distribution of capitalists, Linux (capitalist companies have made major contributions to linux, and still do), and the internet (distributed under a capitalist model)
The creator's ideology does not matter
The history of the transition from one mode of production to the next has always been intrinsically tied to technological development. The transition from feudalism to capitalism could not have happened without the steam engine, as an example. That being said, socialism is most responsible for poverty eradication, if we cut out socialist economies poverty has gone up over the last century.