Gorilladrums

@Gorilladrums@lemmy.world

This is a remote user, information on this page may be incomplete. View at Source ↗

⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨NO BITCHES?⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:
True, but even in dating apps where you can easily access individuals in this demographic, they still struggle. Women in general are just extremely more selective than men. Gay men, for example, don’t have this issue.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨NO BITCHES?⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:
One of the funniest things is watching women who talk down to guys having trouble dating women by calling them ugly, insufferable, or creepy, only for them to struggle just as much, if not more, to do the same.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨NO BITCHES?⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:
I’ve always wondered what kind of person is on the other side of these comments, I imagine it’s someone that everybody in their life finds them unpleasant
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Nice⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:
I see you chose to go down the second route that he described
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Just give me someone to vote for who is normal⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

If feel like, that was what my comment was about.

Kind of, but I was wondering if there more to it than just Marxist communism?

We need to work hard to be open minded and challenge our most basic assumptions.

But wouldn’t the same apply to you?

That is just wrong. Marx was actually stonchly against authoritarianism, he argued for workplace democracy and was against nation states as a concept.

What? This is just pure misinformation. Marx was a notorious authoritarian. This isn’t some secret either, he was very, very vocal about it. He went out of his way to criticize, mock, and demean the pacifist socialists of his era as being naive, stupid, and weak. Just look at criticisms of Pierre Joseph Proudhon or Charles Fourier or Henri de Saint Simon. He’s literally famous for favoring violence over peaceful alternative in his works.

He defined communism as a stateless, classless society. So, even though the Soviet Union pretended to be Marxist or communist, they were wrong. At least if you go by what most leftists thinkers understand as communism.

Communism was just his idea of a utopian society, it’s not his ideology. Marx’s ideology is about how he thought societies should get to this utopia of his. His ideology instructed that a society should overthrow capitalism in a revolution, workers should seize all property and means of production by force and kill all those who resist, and then establish a transitional socialist state that represents the workers that rules with an iron fist in order to bring about the social climate necessary to realize communism (dictatorship of the proletariat). Since communism is a utopia, it’ll never be achieved, and that’s why all the attempts at it in history have always stopped at the tyrannical transitional socialist state stage… the Soviet Union was such an example, Maoist China would be another.

You seem to be conflating authoritarianism and violence. Yeah, a revolution might be violent. But the status quo is already incredibly violent, so it might be the most sensible option we have.

So you’re not an anarchist, but a Marxist? Anarchy as a philosophy is fundamentally opposed to the idea of using organized violence to coerce society into doing things that are against people’s will.

What makes you think that? There is actually quite a bit of evidence pointing to the contrary

I wasn’t giving an opinion there. That’s literally how civilization is defined:

“All civilizations have certain characteristics. These include: large population centers; monumental architecture and unique art styles; shared communication strategies; systems for administering territories; a complex division of labor; and the division of people into social and economic classes.”

Source: National Geographic

Community does not necessarily need violence towards outsiders. In fact, according to a lot of scientists, human societies were very peaceful for a very long time

Did you read the article that you linked? It doesn’t make this claim. It’s saying that we have new evidence of prehistoric wars, but it’s still too limited and vague to determine the origin of warfare, because the interpretation of that means is also too vague. It doesn’t say that humans were more peaceful or more warlike.

Humans, like all the other great apes, can be violent and can have physical fights between different tribes, and we did. Evidence for human on human violence is present in every era and everywhere. It just that it used to be that human communities were small and nomadic, and if they ran into people, they would just move to another area. The only times people fought was if a group was threatening another group or if there were scarce resources. However, around 10,000 years ago, we developed agriculture and people depended on the land they were on. Population and population density both increased due to the increased food production, which demanded more land and resources… and it’s not hard to see why competition, and ultimately war, became more intense.

Almost as if there were other authoritarian systems, that tried to protect the interests of their ruling classes before capitalism.

Yes, and Marxist socialism was no different. Instead of the elite being royalty and nobility or economic tycoons or the clergy, it became the rulers of the new socialist government. Every single Marxist attempt in history devolved into being a dictatorship of sorts where immense power was concentrated in the hands of a few who had all the say and no oversight who ended up wrecking havoc on society. This is actually one of the biggest reasons why Eastern European countries despise communism as much as fascism, and rightfully so.

Apes are racist and wage war? That seems interesting, where can I learn more?

I know you’re being facetious, but what I said is factual. Obviously apes aren’t racist, you just misinterpreted what I said. I said that humans, like the other great apes, are tribalistic. For us modern humans, that has manifested itself in the form of something like racism or whatever other type of bigotry. The point is that the underlying cause for it stems from evolutionary trait that we evolved in nature. The same goes for war. Great apes, specifically chimps, our closest relatives, do have wars of their own.

Again, I’m not babbling nonsense, this is something that’s both well studied and well known. This research is literally what made Jane Goodall famous. She studied the Gombe chimps in Tanzania for 50 years, and she found that chimps are very similar in behavior to humans. They made and modified tools, the had complex social hierarchies, they had wars, they were tribalistic, they ate meat, they share bonds and emotions like people, and so on. You’ll be surprised by how much of our behavior is actually evolved rather than conditioned. Human nature is very complex and runs very deep.

Almost as if every capitalist government is doing everything they can to strike down these attempts because if they became successful, they would make other systems look bad.

You can’t blanket blame capitalism for everything, that’s just lazy and dishonest. During the cold war, for example, the Soviet Union spent a comical amount of effort trying to take down capitalist societies. They committed genocides, overthrew democratically elected governments, started civil wars, invaded sovereign nations, installed puppet dictators, launched countless propaganda campaigns, and the list goes on and on. They were after all the other half of the cold war. Yet despite their efforts, which were on par with the US, they failed and capitalism came out on top. That didn’t happen because of the CIA, it happened because capitalism just happens to be a better, more functional, and more resilient system than socialism. Accountability is often better than deflection.

In this case, Rojava was actually supported by Western capitalist democracies, and it got taken down by islamists backed by Turkey. The anarchists in Spain were on the side of the Republicans who were defeated by Franco and his fascist army, who were supported by fascist Germany and Italy, so there wasn’t any notable capitalist society that opposed them. As for the Zapatistas, they were never sovereign, they’re just a rebel group that hasn’t really done much. Even the Mexican government doesn’t care about them. You talk of a grand conspiracy against anarchist attempts by the big evil capitalist governments, but there really isn’t any evidence to support that. They failed to achieve anything, they failed to sustain their movements, and they failed to defend themselves when it mattered.

And yeah, it is really impressive to build an egalitarian, system with flat power structures amidst overwhelming resistance by governments with hugely powerful military force.

But they didn’t do this. The Mexican government controls all of the territory they claim, and Mexican law is the rule of the land. Do you have any actual evidence that they achieved this? More importantly, do you have any evidence that this led to anything tangible at all? As far as I’m aware, they only make grand claims, they haven’t done much. They didn’t build infrastructure, improve healthcare, raise the standards of living, advance science, build universities, decrease crime, they didn’t gain sovereignty, or anything really. If anything they did the opposite. They opposed a train project by the government to connect them to the rest of the country in 2020. They dissolved the Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities because they couldn’t get a handle crime in 2023. They seceded their claims to sovereignty by trying to participate in Mexican elections in 2018, only for their candidate to not be able to garner enough signatures to even show up on the ballot. This is impressive to you? Like come on, what are we even talking about?

Also the crime thing, what I meant about coming together as a community was assembling councils of people that have expertise in how to handle this, who decide together and enforcing the decisions not through state violence but through collective action by the community.

I pasted this from your other comment for convenience. Based on your evasive wording, I think we both understand that fundamental flaw with the ideology here. Societies require order in order to keep the peace, however order can only be achieved with a certain degree of force (i.e. threat of punishment for breaking the law)… but that directly contradicts anarchism as a concept because anarchy is against order in general because its inherently hierarchal. So you can either have a functional society or you can have anarchy, not both.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Just give me someone to vote for who is normal⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

I generally think of anarchism not as a perfectly thought out system, that I could implement tomorrow, but as a utopian vision, we should strive towards. But I will give my best shot at answering this.

My question to you is this, what vision should we strive for in your opinion? No system is ever perfect, but it does need to have a considerable degree of practicality in order to exist in the real world for an extended period of time.

My vision of anarchism is very inspired by the ideas of Marx, so I believe that all economic activity should be full owned and controlled by workers in some kind of democratic system.

But this a contradictory notion, is it not? Marxism is an inherently authortarian ideology in both theory and practice, which is why every attempt at it in history has resulted in some tyrannical regime. The idea that you can collectivize an entire economy and redistribute resource as the “collective” (read: government) deems necessary is simply impossible without a great deal of violence, coercion, and theft involved. The only way this idea could work without tyranny is if everybody in a society can magically agree to everything, which again, is impossible. There will always be people who will disagree, people who will resist, and people who will refuse to participate. That’s just how humans are. But if these types of people are allowed to do as they wish, then the system collapses in on itself. This is why communist regimes end up killing so many people in their quest to achieve communism, but that in of itself is the reason why communism is widely considered a failure as an ideology.

There would of course be no one at the top, that makes much more than other people so I don’t really see a way, where inequality would meaningfully arise.

I think you misunderstood the point that I was making in my scenarios. I was pointing out how you can’t have order without inequality. One of the hallmark defining features of civilization is inequality, not in the sense of wealth, but in the sense of power. In order for people to organize in a society there needs to be people who have disporportaite levels of power and authority that grants them the ability to oversee, manage, and instruct people to act in certains ways in order achieve predefined goals. In other words, if you want a functional society, you need heiarchies.

Also, social heirarchies don’t exist because of capitalism, they exist because it’s an incredibly useful trait that social animals like humans evolved to better survive in the wild.

The capital class also loves to push racism, sexism etc. through the media they controll to protect their own interests

Like I was saying earlier, things like this don’t exist because of capitalism. If your claims about capitalism were true then there wouldn’t be any notion of things like war, racism, crime, and so on before the 17th and 18th centuries when capitalism formed, but that’s clearly not the case because these all existed long before recorded history were a thing. In fact, a lot of these traits can be found in our closest ape relatives, which means that they’re a product of our evolution.

Humans are tribal beings, and our ape brains are literally designed to ensure our survival in the wild. The way that we survived in nature is by forming small communities that we depended on our survival. If you lost your community, you’re screwed. Therefore, we evolved to become very protective of our tribes. We are inately catious change and hostile to outsiders because they could threaten the stability of our community, and thus our survival. In modern times tribalism comes in different forms whether its religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, political affilation, nationality, and so on. Even if you manage to eradicate one, another will come and take its place. Obviously we should strive to treat everybody with equal kindness and respect, but we also have to acknowledge that this isn’t something that be conditioned away with a change in economics or politics.

There should of course be general rules the community agreed on, but the circumstances should also be considered.

That’s already the case now, it’s called the justice system. However, you can’t have a justice system without a government that monoplizes violence. You need a government to have a police force that enforces rules and carries out punishments… but if that’s the case then we’re no longer in anarchist situation.

(imperfect, but still impressive) real world implementations of this could look like, look at anarchist Spain, Rojava or the Zapatistas

Impressive how? I think all three are considerable failures. They didn’t manage to last long and they didn’t achieve anything notable.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Just give me someone to vote for who is normal⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
Okay, how exactly do you think things like crime, inequality, or general societal order should be handled?
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Just give me someone to vote for who is normal⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
I actually didn’t know this. She really does seem like a sweet and friendly person. It’s a shame she’s being used as a symbol for crazy by the right, when she’s actually the opposite.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Just give me someone to vote for who is normal⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

I believe, that all forms of unjust hierarchy are a bad thing

What exactly do you think is a just hierarchy? Where is the line?
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Can't wait.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
I mean all the romance languages descend from Latin. The reason why that language splintered into a bunch of other languages is isolation. When Christianity came to Europe, the empire splintered into a bunch of smaller empires and kingdoms and stayed that way for centuries. That led to a lot local variations that eventually turned into full blown languages.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Can't wait.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
This is complete nonsense. All languages are organic and evolve naturally. There’s no academic body that controls any langauge, that’s not how languages work. What exists is institutional bodies that try to break down and explain languages into rules and patterns, they don’t actually dictate the direction of the language. English also has such institutions by the way. This idea that English is uniquely inconsistent or uncontrolled is not true. Arabic, for example, is just as quirky, inconsistent, and uncontrolled. That’s just human speech.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Can't wait.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
Posts like this are so ignorant because they’re based on the false premise that English was made to be the global language, when it’s not. It was made as a result of the mixing of Germans, Scandinavians, Celts, and French people on a gloomy isolated island in the corner of Europe for thousands of years. It’s a language that was evolved by those people, and thus it contains a lot of their linguistic quirks coming together.

Every single language has quirks like this. For example, I also speak Arabic, and people are always shocked when I tell them that an Arabic speaker from Iraq and an Arab speaker from Morocco cannot understand each other because Arabic dialects are basically different languages. THey’re only unified by standard Arabic, which most Arabic speakers don’t use in their day to day lives. It’s basically a language that’s only used to communicate with other Arabs.

English only got to where it is because of a unique situation in history where the language was used by not one, but two global hegemons. Not only that but those hegemons happened to be the most of the powerful in history, and they ruled back to back. That’s what spread and cemented English into the global language it is today.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:
No, I’m calling the communist society that Marxist are trying to ultimately achieve a utopia, which it is. But considering how you ignored everything and went for another disingenuous attempt tells me everything I need to know about you. I won’t reply to you again.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

My point is you have no idea what communists are trying to achieve or have achieved.

You don’t have any basis for this claim besides the fact you’re mad that I’m openly critical of Marx and this shitty ideology. If that was the case then you would’ve provided your case, but you haven’t and you probably won’t. Communism is very much a utopia no matter how much you twist it. It’s fits the definition to a T. Marx pretending his utopia isn’t a utopia and then going to attack other people for their utopias is like a closeted homosexual denying their sexuality and being homophobic to cope with their reality.

Also he was an economist lol.

He was both
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:
You’re full of shit. You’re just mad because I’m openly critical of this shitty ideology instead of blindly accepting it like you. Keep in mind, everything you said here applies directly to you. Instead of asking me what I disagreed with it, you arrogantly assumed that I was ignorant and can’t define the ideology solely because you can’t accept that there are people who understand the ideology and hate it.

I could’ve told you to fuck off right then and there, but I actually gave you an honest summary of what the ideology is. Once again, instead of responding to what I said, you refused to accept that other people disagreed with your incredibly myopic worldview and you arrogantly assumed that I was ignorant and haven’t read any of his works. You even went out of your to insult me by calling me brainwashed, because apparently to you, that’s the only way people can ever disagree with his holiness, Karl Marx.

Once again, I could told you to fuck off, but I decided to just tell you the works that I read. You could’ve just started a discussion based on them. Instead, you rejected what I’m telling yet again, and arrogantly assumed that I was lying because how can anybody possibly disagree with the holy scriptures of the prophet Karl Marx after reading them? That clearly impossible.

All your comments follow the same pattern of: You reject the criticism that’s right in front of you -> you make a bunch of character attacks -> you pretend that I’m incapable of responding or articulating criticisms even though they’re, again, right in front of you. In fact, I’m the only one who has been articulating thoughts and criticism, you haven’t provided shit. You haven’t addressed anything that I said and you haven’t provided anything of substance of your own. All of you’ve done is cope with whats in front of you and attacked my character 3 times in a row without ever bothering to engage with me in good faith even once. Now you’re after doing this, you’re going to have the conceit to accuse me of attacking your character? You’re accusing me of being incapable of engaging in good faith? What a fucking hypocrite you are.

I was waiting for you to start saying something worthy of a discussion at some point, but it’s clear at this point that you’re not going to do that because you’re the one who’s incapable, not me. I think now is the right time to tell you to fuck off.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

Communism can mean many things, and many things that call themselves communism have very little to nothing to do with what Marx wrote about.

I’m talking about the original communist ideology as derived by Marx himself. I’m not talking about people like Stalin or Xi Jinping here who could be argued as not communist even though they described themselves as much.

As an aside, Marx was not just a grumpy philosopher, he was also an economist who laid the foundation for thinking of the economy in terms of power, ownership and democracy. The Marxian school of economics is still influential today.

Influential doesn’t mean it’s correct or has any actual value. His analysis was flawed and his proposed solutions were even worse. His work can only make sense if you accept his assumptions as axioms. A lot of people did, but when they tried to carry out what he prescribed things didn’t go as planned because, well, his assumptions were flawed. Not every philosopher deserves respect just because it’s influential. Mussolini also invented a very influential ideology that’s unfortunately still popular today, but that doesn’t mean he and his ideology are above criticism or worthy or respect just because.

Your ramblings about “communism has always failed” leads me to believe that you are talking about Marxism-Leninism, which I also believe is outdated and dominated by dogmatic thinking, but I digress.

If you’re going to reduce my criticism to “ramblings” then you’re already in engaging in bad faith. You can’t seem to accept the core idea itself is flawed. It doesn’t matter what flavor it comes in, the result will inevitably be the same.

Now let me rephrase: Existing socialism has worked many times, but has always been stomped out by brutal capitalist imperialism.

Why are you moving the goal posts? Communism is a specific ideology, socialism is just a general economic model. These are not the same thing. With that being said pure socialism in any form hasn’t worked either. What examples do you have to prove this? Just start listing them. I’m positive that list won’t be based on actual results but on speculation and assumptions.

Also, this idea that the reason why socialism has never worked is because of US or Western intervention is pure cope. Not only does this ignore all the instances where socialism collapsed in on itself, but also ignores the fact the Soviet Union, and to a lesser extent China, also tried to brutally stomp out capitalism all around the world. They toppled democratically elected government, they installed puppet dictators, they committed genocides, they invaded countries, they employed propaganda campaigns, they’ve done it all. Marxists always conveniently forget the other half of the cold war. Regardless, capitalism survived the onslaught, socialism didn’t. This is because socialism is simply a more fragile system that can’t withstand disruption.

A brief look at the history of central and south america, and all other colonially exploited areas should show you that the system that has produced the most suffering, destroyed the most democracies, is capitalism. Let me rephrase: Capitalism has never worked.

That’s such an odd, vague, and cherrypicked statement that proves nothing but makes a bunch of declarations. Why focus on South America and not the world at large? Capitalism has done wonders for China, India, Poland, Romania, Spain, Ireland, the Baltic countries, Germany, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Botswana, and the list goes on and on. Actually even in South America, countries like Chile and Uruguay have had their best economic stretches under capitalism while countries like Venezuela declined substantially under socialism. It’s silly to try and reduce an entire continent to a single misguided soundbite.

Capitalism is a very flawed system, but it is pure objective fact that it works, maybe a little too well. The criticism of capitalism were never that it didn’t work, but that it has no breaks, it keeps going until things break. In terms of pure functionality, capitalism has been proven to take any economy and turn into something that’s much more efficient, wealthy, and overflowing with surplus of goods. Capitalism can increase the industrial capacity of any country that let’s it do it’s thing. Pretending that capitalism never worked is simply just a false statement.

So again, what kind of economic system do you advocate for?

I gave you my answer, you just refuse to accept it.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

You’re such a boring anticommunist proapgandist, you’ve been educated a million times in this platform and you refuse to absorb the smallest knowledge.

Lmao you’re an idiot. You’re NOT knowledgeable, and the fact that you’re so arrogant that you think you’re in a position to educate just shows how much of dimwit you are. Idiots like you seethe every time I make the most obvious criticisms of this shitty ideology because you can’t prove me wrong. I bring up

If communism doesnt work, why did it take 1bn people out of poverty and save Europe from Nazism?

It quite literally did neither. The Soviet Union were literally the closest allies of the Nazis. Stalin and Hitler signed a pact and invaded Poland together. They’re literally half the reason why WWII started. Things only changed when Hitler betrayed Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union, and even then, the Soviet Union did not save Europe from the Nazis. That ignores the massive contributions from the rest of the allies, mainly the US and the British Empire, who liberated the other half of Europe AND took down the other two axis powers by themselves. Not to mention that the Soviet Union didn’t liberate shit, they were occupiers themselves who were just as brutal as the Nazis in a lot of ways. There’s a reason why every single Eastern European country despises communism and the Soviet Union as much as they despise fascism and Nazi Germany.

Also communism is notorious for dragging societies into poverty. There’s not a single example of communism taking a society into a better place then where it has left it. Every single instance in history has either resulted in collapse or revert to capitalism in some form. I assume you’re referring to China’s economic rise lifting 800 million people out of poverty. But if you had even the most elementary understanding of Chinese history, which you very clearly don’t, then you would know that this rise started in the late 80s because that’s when China officially adopted capitalism.

Mao was a true communist and China under him was well and truly socialist. This was the darkest chapter in China’s 5000 year old history. Socialism was such a colossal failure that it has resulted in the biggest man made disaster in human history, the Great Chinese Famine, which killed somewhere between 15 and 55 million people. This coupled with the Great leap forward and a bunch of other campaigns, somewhere between 40 and 80 million people were killed as a direct result of Mao and his policies. This makes Mao the dictator with the highest death toll in history. All the while, the Chinese economy was in complete shambles and the country was on the verge of collapse yet again. When Mao died in the 1976, the next leader of China, Deng Xiaoping made it very clear to the public that country was going to go into a de-Maoization similar to what Khrushchev did after Stalin died.

Starting in the late 70s and throughout the 80s, Deng Xiaoping made a series reforms where China adopted capitalism and liberalized the economy. He allowed foreign investment to come into the country, he allowed people to hold private businesses, he allowed farmers to keep surplus crops and sell them for profit, he loosened restrictions on free markets, state owned corporations were restructured to have a lot more autonomy, he established “special economic zones” all over the country where capitalism ran free. China’s GDP growth correlates with these reform 1:1. If you look at a graph of China’s economic growth it starts and directly correlates with these reforms. The vast majority of the world, including China itself acknowledge that capitalism is what’s responsible for China’s economic boom.

This basic information. If piss poor propaganda and misinformation that can easily be debunked with a 30 second google search is your “education” then you take the crown for being the biggest clown on lemmy.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:
Europe has figured it out so has New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Japan, and so on. In fact, only capitalist systems have ever produced genuine democracies. All the socialist examples in history were authoritarian governed by an unelected ruling elite.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:
That’s not competition. I don’t think you understand what that means.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:
This is a load of nonsense. Socialism is not a blanket term that you can manipulate to mean whatever you like, the same goes for capitalism where you turn it into a pejorative for anything you don’t like. Democracy is also very much not socialism is any way, shape, or form and they have zero connection to each other.

Socialism is an economic model that revolves the concept that all the resources, property, and means of production in a society are publicly owned and managed, aka a centrally planned economy. Democracy is when the people govern themselves. There are ideologies that try to interoperate both, these are very much not the same thing. The same goes for capitalism which is an economic model which revolves around economies being run by free markets, aka unplanned economies.

Socialism is NOT state capitalism, it’s NOT welfare programs, and it NOT public schools or infrastructure. A country like Denmark is NOT socialist because it has universal healthcare and public schools. In fact when Bernie Sanders called them socialist in his 2016 campaign, the PM of Denmark at the time literally came out and correct him by saying that Denmark was capitalist. An actual example of socialism would be the Soviet Union or China under Mao.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:
Socialism is a failure because it shifts the wealthy class from private individuals with a lot of influence to the actual ruling elite. Therefore the exploitation is happening by the very people running the economy. We saw this happen time and time again in socialist countries.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:
This is pure cope. I’ve read a few of his works like Das Kapital, Critique of the Gotha Program, and the Communist Manifesto and it is what opened up my eyes to how much of an idiot this guy was and how shitty his idea are in both theory and practice. You’re just mad because you bought into the bullshit and can’t accept that the rest of the world is also educated on his works, but come to a different conclusion because they have basic critical thinking skills.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:
You have to be an actual idiot to treat this subpar philosopher as some prophet and crappy works as the gospel. They hold ZERO legitimacy. He can claim that communism was not a utopia all he wants, but it’s literally an idealized fantasy of what a perfect society looks like, that’s what a utopia is by definition.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:
If you think a country like Denmark is socialist then you don’t know what socialism is
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:
I mean the US isn’t the definition of capitalism. It’s just one hundreds of examples. There are other countries that do capitalism way better like Denmark for example.

Also a big part of capitalism is the idea that different factions will compete for influence. The idea is that the different fingers of the invisible hand (the government, the public, capitalists, corporations, institutions, NGOs, the media, etc) are going to keep each other in check. If tension breaks and things fall out of balance then you basically get a dystopia. That’s why checks and balancing is one of the most crucial things to any successful capitalist system. It’s also the reason why capitalism in the US is heading down the wrong direction. Money in politics has thrown everything out of whack.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:
But that’s not what socialism is. Socialism is when the “public” (read: government) controls all of societies land, resources, and means of production and distributes them from ability to need. Socialism is a specific economic system where the entire economy is centrally planned.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:
The thing is that capitalism isn’t an ideology like communism. Capitalism is a purely economic system. There are ideologies built around it, but capitalism itself is not one. Capitalism can exist under wildly different ideologies and produce wildly different result. India, the US, Saudi Arabia, and Iceland are all capitalist but they very different from each other. That’s because capitalism is more like a tool. Communism actually tries to layout how a society should ideally be run economically, politically, and socially. The counterpart to capitalism is not communism, but socialism.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:
It’s a shitty utopia thought up by a grumpy German philosopher from a bygone era where he thought that all the issues of Germany during the Industrial revolution could be solved by having all the resources, land, and means of production be publicly owned and operated as well as have the redistribution of them go from ability to need. He thought that this was the silver bullet solution to everything. He thought because there’s a theoretical equality of outcome, there would no longer be class division tearing society apart. Therefore, there will no longer be crime or discrimination or a need for money or even a state… as that’s the reason why these things exist in the first place. It should be noted that he thinks that the state would dismantle itself after the utopia is achieved just because, and it’s not just the government but also the state apparatus so things like the military, public schools, the courts, the media, etc would also get dismantled.

So basically it’s just a fantasy of anarchist society that doesn’t have state, money, or classes where all the people magically agree and get together to publicly manage all the means of production and redistribute all the resources in such a way where everybody has exactly what they need all the time. Oh, and all of this will happen after a violent revolution that overthrows capitalism followed by a transitional tyrannical socialist state that supposed to represent the workers that’s going to rule with an iron fist to bring about the necessary social conditions to realize communism. That’s the state that will voluntarily dismantle itself when communism is achieved.

The ideology is such a fucking joke that it can’t even withstand basic criticism and logical reasoning. It’s no wonder that it has literally failed every single time it has been tried. Hundreds of attempts across different time periods, lands, cultures, and circumstances. At one point communist countries controlled over 1/3 of the planet… and yet they all failed. Every single one is a failure. They all either collapsed, turned into authoritarian shitholes, or reverted to capitalism in some way. The opposite never happened. Capitalism is not good, it’s a very flawed system and idea, but at least it functions to some capacity. Marxist communism is so delusional and unsound that it literally doesn’t function. No amount of “MUH THEEREES” will change the reality of communism being a meme.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:
Communism is just utopia. It’s the fantasy of a German man from a bygone era of how he thought a perfect society should look like. It’s not a realistic or practical ideology, and never was. This is why every single attempt at achieving it in history results in failure and it’s the reason why that’s always going to be the case.

You can’t run an economy based fictional utopias or treating some German philosopher’s subpar ideas as gospel. The economy, like with anything else in society, has to be run pragmatically. It needs to be studied like any other academic subject, and the research should be used to organize and refine what’s been proven to work and what doesn’t. Likewise, people who are experts on the subject should be the ones drafting guidelines that drive the economy, and the advice they give should be based on their society’s current problems. If it’s makes sense for their country’s economy to have socialized healthcare then they should do that, if it makes sense for their country to privatize their country’s musical instrument industry then they should do that. This idea that we have to box ourselves and our economies into some ideological box never made sense to me.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨You have nothing to lose but your brains⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:
That’s just cope. The reality is that communism is fundamentally flawed to the point where failure was always going to be the inevitable outcome. That’s why despite a century of nonstop attempts across all cultures and lands, not a single attempt panned out well. They all either collapsed or reverted to some version of capitalism. The opposite never happened.