• oyzmo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Socialism allows for both public and private ownership, individual freedoms, and democratic decision-making, while still aiming for social equality. Communism, in contrast, tends to involve total state control and often limits personal freedoms.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      19 minutes ago

      Both Capitalism and Socialism have room for public and private ownership, the difference is which sector controls the state, large firms, and key industries. The Nordic Countries are dominated by Private Capital, ie it is Capitalist, while the PRC is dominated by Public Ownership, ie it is Socialist.

      Communism limits the personal freedoms of the bourgeoisie. All Communism is, is a mkre developed and global form of Socialism, where the small firms that once were private have all grown into the public sector or collapsed.

    • m532@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Limits personal freedoms only for the owning class. If you’re not a landlord or ceo you have nothing to fear.

      • Liberteez@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        Tell that to the masses Lenin, Stalin, and Mao killed

        I support communes, and Anarcho communism sounds lovely. Once authority is involved, they tend to fail

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          12 minutes ago

          The Black Book of Communism was debunked long ago, from including Nazis killed during World War II as “victims of Communism” to literally making up numbers to get to 100 million dead to being outright disproven once the Soviet Archives were opened up.

          There were excess deaths, but Communist leaders weren’t mindless butchers, either. And with the introduction of Socialism came numerous benefits for the working class, like a doubling of life expectancy, tripling of literacy rates to 99.9%, free and high quality education, healthcare, and childcare, an expansion in women’s rights, a democratization of the economy, and much more.

          Anarchism is a beautiful idea, and I used to be one. However, I am more convinced of Marxism, namely because we have more data that shows the success of Marxism, and because hierarchy and centralization are requirements for expansive infrastructure projects like high speed rail and for complex production, such as for smartphones.

          I have an introductory Marxist-Leninist Reading List you can check out, if you’d like to learn more.

  • Grimel@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Ah yes, get rid of extremism with different extremism. I think we’ve been there already. Spoiler: Didnt work.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 minutes ago

      First, a societal organization outside the Western norm has no bearing on if it will be successful or not. The “middle” has no superior intrinsic characteristics.

      Second, we know Socialism works, the PRC is now becoming the de facto world power as the US falls, all while providing dramatic improvements for its people and increasing levels of satisfaction.

      What, specifically, doesn’t work?

  • eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Maaaaaaybe the USSR isn’t the best example of a better society we want to be building.

    I’m watching the whole ideological-purge thing happen in the US and it kinda sucks.

    • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Either build something better or shutup, I say. Unless you’re a big fan of Tsarist Russia

      • rational_lib@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        6 hours ago

        I’ve played civilization and I’m pretty sure there’s other forms of government besides Communism and Monarchy that have low corruption, albeit lacking the ability to force the citizens into war on the leader’s whim.

      • Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        37 minutes ago

        Human nature. We need living people to tell us what happened the last time something happened society-wide, else we forget and repeat the same mistakes. It’s the whole hard times make strong men thing. It’s on about an 80 year cycle. The good news is that we’re right at the point in the cycle where real changes are easy to make.

        Read the book The Fourth Turning for many examples of the pattern repeating.

  • void_turtle@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    15 hours ago

    The desire to dominate and the willingness to act on it has existed in a fraction of the population since before humans were human. This is the root of all evil, capitalism is a specific manifestation of this impulse that has only existed for some 400 years. If your analysis starts and ends at “capitalism bad” you miss the vast majority of oppression that has existed or will exist.

    • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      7 hours ago

      What’s your evidence for your the root of evil is that some people just have an “evil” gene theory?

      • void_turtle@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        I never mentioned genetics, strange that you would bring it up. Sex isn’t even fully determined by genetics, something as complex and fragile as your personal values certainly can never be reduced to genetics.

        Humans brains are stochastic and the values we eventually settle on depend both on our environment and on somewhat random walks through possible values. Some people will land on violent domination as a social strategy just through randomness. I believe an environment where everyone is cared for and has the ability to flourish will minimize the people who randomly end up on violent domination, but it is not possible through environmental changes to completely prevent this. Thus we cannot allow any positions of power, since those will attract and eventually be captured by people who have chosen domination as their preferred strategy.

  • random@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    6 hours ago

    “capitalism is evil”

    so what’s not evil?

    “a totalitarian socialist shithole, where you got no freedom or human rights”

    • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 minutes ago

      A river floods every year. If someone builds a house next to it and the river takes it, is the river evil, or is the person suffering the consequences of their own ignorance? The consequences of capitalism are predictable and inevitable. The behaviour of a dollar is almost as predictable as that of an electron. Why do people pretend like we don’t know what is going to happen?

  • Necroscope0@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    12 hours ago

    It is the symptom, not the cause. Greed is the cause and it has been around a LOT longer than Capitalism.

  • atmorous@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    I’d say 1 person owning most of the money made at the company is the problem

    To solve it everyone just needs to form or join a private unionized cooperative that doesn’t go on stock market for sustainable growth and so everyone at the company is making a lot of money too

    Then collectively you all grow the pot that is available for all of you. Better to all be making 1,000,000 each and then grow it together to become 10,000,000-100,000,000+ for each of you

    That is the root issue. Not enough of that

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      17 hours ago

      This doesn’t solve the systemic pressures within Capitalism, nor does it describe how to get from A to B. Your idea still depends on your one firm outcompeting other firms, which is difficult in saturated markets.

      I recommend you look into Marxist theory, I have some recommendations I can make.

  • Mangoholic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Capitalism is a system and just that, it has no moral, therefore cannot be evil. The red hand without the ussr symbol would make this image more unified.

    • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      That’s like saying

      “Nazism is a system and just that, it has no moral, therefore cannot be evil.”

      or

      “The Transatlantic slave trade is a system and just that, it has no moral, therefore cannot be evil.”

      What are you talking about? Systems are created by people; they don’t just pop into existence.

      • Mangoholic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        You said it yourself the systems are created by people, the people can be evil. They are the root of the evil aka anyone upholding capitalism because they profit even tho they know exactly how bad it is for the world and people, just like the people creating fascism the fascist are the root of evil.

  • Wilco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Last I checked the USSR didn’t do so well financially, and Russia is basically a criminal empire.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      17 hours ago

      The USSR did fairly well until liberalizing part of its economy, as well as struggling to recover from the immense cost it paid to win the Eastern Front and beat the Nazis while under the oppression of the Cold War.

      The Marxist-Leninist tradition is still carried forward by many states, including the PRC, which is on its way to surpass the US as world superpower.

      • KSP Atlas@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        17 hours ago

        The PRC is barely communist nowadays, and the USSR did not do well, the liberalising was a last-ditch attempt to save it.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          16 hours ago

          The PRC is more classically Marxist than under the Gang of Four, when they abandoned materialist analysis and attempted to implement Communism through fiat. Large firms and key industries of the PRC are firmly in the public sector, while small firms, cooperatives, and sole proprietorships make up most of the private sector.

          Marx didn’t think you could abolish private property by making it illegal, but by developing out of it. Socialism and Communism, for Marx, were about analyzing and harnessing the natural laws of economics moving towards centralization, so as to democratize it and produce in the interests of all. This wasn’t about decentralization, but centralization.

          Markets themselves are not Capitalism, just like public ownership itself is not Socialist. The US is not Socialist just because it has a post-office, just like the PRC is not Capitalist just because it has some degree of private ownership. Rather, Marx believed you can’t just make private property illegal, but must develop out of it, as markets create large firms, and large firms work best with central planning:

          The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i. e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.

          I want you to look at the bolded word. Why did Marx say by degree? Did he think on day 1, businesses named A-C are nationalized, day 2 businesses D-E, etc etc? No. Marx believed that it is through nationalizing of the large firms that would be done immediately, and gradually as the small firms develop, they too can be folded into the public sector. The path to eliminated Private Property isn’t to make it illegal, but to develop out of it.

          The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital;[43] the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

          This is why, in the previous paragraph, Marx described public seizure in degrees, but raising the level of the productive forces as rapidly as possible.

          China does have Billionaires, but these billionaires do not control key industries, nor vast megacorps. The number of billionaires is actually shrinking in the last few years. Instead, large firms and key industries are publicly owned, and small firms are privately owned. This is Marxism.

          As for the USSR, its economy worked quite well for most of its existence. I recommend reading Do Publicly Owned, Planned Economies Work? by Stephen Gowens, who goes over what went right and what went wrong in the Soviet Economy, including why it was dissolved. Further, GDP growth was positive throughout the near entirety of its existence, collapsing when it liberalized:

          I recommend doing more research on Marixsm and the economies of the PRC and former USSR.