Communism promised abolishing classes, but failed.
Capitalism promised protecting the elite class above all else, and succeeded.
Its so obvious when progressive candidates are starting to get momentum. We immediately get back to the red scare except this time with a nice helping of Islamophobia sprinkled on. The playbook is exhausting…
We are a deeply unserious joke of a nation.
Change my mind.
Oh no, it’s very serious, like end of the world serious.
end of the world serious
Sorry guys!! ❤️❤️
- US Citizen
That one time when that one dude uhhhhhh 🤔. Nahhh you right!!!
No
It’s horrific, but also amusing in its own way: So many people in the USA think socialism and communism are the same thing and use them interchangeably. It’s also amusing that the administration and party that’s “fighting” so hard to drum up another communism scare because of the DSA and a push for single-payer healthcare is also promising everyone a $5,000 check … just because – free money!
I think that Trump promise $5,000 to everyone due he is not gonna make It
Seems like that is the end state of any kind of system. Has to be torn down every once in awhile.
how far the line are you drawing that choppy? are you chopping the head off the piss boy? i think he got sold into servitude. you only get one point choppy.
Last time choppy chopped mostly commoner’s heads off. Is this what you are suggesting!?
Yeah I’ve been saying this for a while, I think like a lot of other animal species we have a certain way we like to arrange ourselves as a group and we pretty much always stick to that, just with different names. Essentially, we just naturally seem to end up with a figurehead leader and a little group of powerful people surrounding them, while everyone else just does their best under whatever system them impose.
Democracy = a president/prime minister and a senate/parliament.
Monarchy = A king/queen, and a bunch of lords.
Dictatorship = A dictator, usually with a small group (often a military junta or something similar) surrounding them.
Communism = A chairman and the party heads.
The Vatican = A pope/cardinals.
Businesses = A CEO and then the rest of the C-suite people/a group of shareholders.
Army = General/Sergeants or whatever
Even families tend to often have a kind of matriarch/patriarch figure, and sort of arrange themselves in the same way.
It’s not a complicated system and it makes sense why we do it, I just think it’s kind of interesting that we pretty much always arrange ourselves in the same pattern without even really thinking about it. It might also explain why some things like anarchism don’t often tend to work out in the longer term, they don’t really fit the pattern.
Even things like the internet, which started out with most websites having a more-or-less equal footing, we’ve gradually arranged it over time so that there’s usually one big ‘main website’ for each thing, with a bunch of slightly less powerful but similar sites orbiting them.
The Republicans seem to be stumbling around helplessly trying to explain why they should get votes, but they keep using descriptions that could be turned around on them.
I’m thinking of Vance’s comment at President Pedo’s, circle-jerk-a-thon:
“The contrast in this election, ladies and gentlemen, it’s not about this or that policy. It’s about the party of common sense vs the party of the crazies.”
He’s 100% correct there.
You see, in Capitalist America, man oppresses man. In Soviet Union it is the other way around.
I love how God is verified on X.
Helen Cox Richardson notes that accusation of socialism have been levied by the owner class as far back is the antebellum plantations, arguing the working class are not stakeholders and even basic infrastructure such as roads, schools and libraries were blasphemous.
The red scare started as early as Wilson, as soon as the Red Army beat the White. Wilson petitioned the league of nations to embargo the USSR simply because the ideology was a threat to capital driven industry.
I think the US public needs to deliberate if our intention is to be a public-serving government that holds everyone equal under law and values human rights over property rights. Or, if our intentions are for something else.
Right now the federal government is captured by a movement that does the opposite, with a propaganda machine propping up pro-business (anti-person) ideology, using socialism and communism as scare words.
We’re seeing the end result of this as corporations have captured regulatory bodies, they are left to govern themselves as top-down feifdoms, and the working class is left choking on data center fumes, monitored by mass surveillance and unable to afford fuel and food at the same time.
(We’re also seeing the US state, representing the US public to the international community, getting played by its national rivals, and our military misused and abused.)
Even when it benefits businesses to support the working class (and increase productivity, therefore profitability) businesses fall down, driven by the owner class’ pure resentment of their own workforce. (This is what drives the AI dream of full automation.) To business, the economy is for them, and if they can shut out the workforce to languish on their own and starve, no sleep will be lost over the tragedy.
So the people of the US, if they don’t want this outcome, need to consciously and deliberately choose to create a society that serves the people unconditionally in favor of the businesses. The public-serving infrastructure, the social safety nets, the investment into education and liberal arts, the clear establishment and enforcement of civil rights, the regulatory institutions that protect workers and consumers from the neglect and antagonism of the owner class, all follow naturally.
And that said, it means we are going to have to take business influence on government and excess hoarding of wealth extremely seriously.
And the end result may look a lot like socialism or communism, whether or not we’re working towards adopting either specific ideology.
Our intentions are for something else, but we will use the propaganda of liberty, freedom, and representation to try and convince people otherwise.
The intentions of the corporate class, the (captured) government class, and the plutocratic class are all about world domination while, yes, including notions of liberty, freedom and representation in their propaganda rhetoric. (Or at least using them as buzzwords. I’m not sure if the typical MAGA knows what liberty or freedom is.)
But this is the reason we need to organize at the grassroots level. The goal I suggest in the US is organizing twelve million Americans under a common manifesto. It’s tricky: we’d need some legal and government scholars to write it up and make it accessible to the public (and annotate it so that they understand it).
The thing is, the US seemed to (more or less) be trying to do this in the postwar economy (that is, post WWII), in which business was tightly regulated, unions were strong, the owner class was taxed heavily, and antitrust enforcement was robust. It started deteriorating in the 1970s (right around when we went off the gold standard, and Lewis Powell wrote his (now notorious) memorandum. Jerry Falwell discovered the single-issue voter, the southern strategy became full on dog-whistle racism, and Reagan won in a landslide (with a little help from Iran). The economy went K-shaped, and corruption in government increased exponentially from there.
I think most Americans want the US to be a pluralistic liberal democracy. Some people might be so sheltered as to believe it already is. (Looking at you, Kavanaugh.) But maybe we need to commit to the notion that is is what we want, but isn’t there right now, and is in stark jeopardy of never being able to become it ever again (without the US turning into another thing, another iteration of society).
How to make it happen is well beyond my pay grade, but I might be able to find language that is effective for a mission statement.
I like what you have to say and I do think there is a way forward. We have to convince the wealthy to relent by offering them something worthwhile to trade for their wealth for. Perhaps social status or some scheme that works for them on a basic psychological level.
There are going to be winners and losers in every policy decision, the trick is making it palatable for the loserss. This is ultimately what must be decided for the current wealthy class. Ideally it should be mostly voluntary with minimal coercion. It will require new thinking outside our current common paradigms.
No matter the political or economic system, what is to be avoided is the concentration of power, both “soft” and “hard”. Alas, I’m more convinced than ever before that this is a feature of homo sapiens, and not a bug.
I agree that social hierarchies are a feature of homo sapiens, hence why any good form of governance should be based on restricting our worst instincts. That’s what the original liberalism improved with the separation of political power into executive, legislative, and judicate branches. Unfortunately, the same was not done for economic power, which - most liberal democracies - allowed to keep concentrating with few to no safeguards.
Distributism is interesting on this front I think, it’s sceptical of power and wealth being concentrated by anyone public or private and instead advocates widespread ownership of the means of production.
I’ve been listening to The Dawn of Everything, a New History of Humanity the past couple weeks and it’s been quite interesting. Particularly relevant to this topic is how many societies we have evidence for — through actual contact and documentation or through archaeological findings and anthropological research — that either consciously did not develop or later abolished a ruling class, whether as devolved cultural groups or even in cities of tens of thousands. Examples are given for cities in Mesopotamia, Yucatan, iirc north of the Black Sea, and other areas.
Lots of interesting stuff on personal freedom, collective decision-making, community care, agriculture and conscious lack thereof, etc.
This is why you have to insure the alignment of direct stakeholders and not overly broaden it above those who are directly impacted. You never want the same guy selling your food to be the same guy that verifies that it is safe.
A Stakeholder Socialist system, I think, is that ideal as it utilizes coöp commonwealths, democratic workerplaces, muti-stakeholder and syndicated ownership models, and federated levels of oversight such that power only escalates for things necessary and narrowly at that scope like interconnected grids or safety in international food trade.
And then you wonder why Trump won…
I’m curious as to why you think he won.
He won because his promises were better aligned with voter demands. In short: Dems neglected large part of voters and he simply targeted that neglected population.
You can be cynical and say he was a better liar. Which is fair, but truth doesn’t really matter in this race. It’s all about promises and appearences.
He targeted stupid hateful people with stupid hateful bullshit. No matter how you look at it, that he won once nevermind twice is an absolutely damning indictment of the average US Americans ignorance and belligerence.
Avg American isn’t much smarter or dumber than European or Asian. Have you considered that there might be some other factors?
Are you seriously suggesting the American education system is remotely on par with the rest of the developed world? If you’re US American you’re proving my point.
Yes, we are highly regarded in the dumbass competition that is called the human race.
Are you suggesting right wing parties are not making gains electorally in europe?
He won because they cheated. You can look at the results of Rockland county election where a democratic majority voter demographic did not report one single vote for Harris. “The anomalies in the presidential race include multiple districts where hundreds of voters chose the Democratic candidate Kirsten Gillibrand for Senate, but where zero voters selected the Democratic Presidential candidate Kamala Harris…” (smartelections.us)
In addition- “Plaintiffs additionally presented the Board with the first in a series of inquiries including questions about modem, Wi-Fi, or cellular connections to Rockland County’s election systems; whether the county was using either Starlink’s Direct to Cell service, or a program known as Ballotproof[1]; and if any irregularities in the 2024 election were reported or investigated.” (smartelections.us)
It’s statistically impossible and hundreds of voters from the district indicated voting for Harris. The case went to the State Supreme court and is currently on appeal. Should have been a front page story post election, relegated to the bone yard to all but those who saw it for what it was. Nevada elections (and most swings states) had similar anomalies.
Get rid of machines and hand count no matter the cost or time.
I don’t think it’s being reported for a few reasons one of which is trump poised that well with his 2020 election fraud. Now I think there are too many people that are scared they are going to sound just as crazy as trump when they bring up 2024.
He won because they cheated.
If cheating the elections is even remotely possible then you have much bigger problem than Trump. But there’s a due process to ensure elections are fair, right?
The voting machines can be accessed via wifi so it is possible (likely not the first time). Due process would be great if the Supreme Court wasn’t completely compromised. Thus far (if you read the articles) the NY state Supreme Court case is on appeal. It seems that the judge doesn’t want to touch it given its volatility. How does one explain, in a county of democrats, votes for the US Democratic senator but not a single vote for Harris?
Jesus using machines is dumb from the start. Why is US doing it? There’s really robust framework developed in other countries, where you show your ID and sign yourself on the list to recieve your ballot. Everything in presence of multiple people. Unless entire commission is conspiring to falsify countless votes this is bullet proof and transparent.
I think it goes deeper than that. We have a problem with hierachical thinking in general. We expect our kids to follow their leaders, without question, there is little room for kids to participate in society in a meaningful way.There is no way for them to change anything.
Than they get to an abitrary age and we expect them to suddenly transition to involved voters.
I don’t believe that people raised to question why a system works how it works, who were allowed to argue , whos curiousity got rewarded, who simply had a real voice in their upbringing, would have fallen for him.
They would have learned that things are more complicated and they would trust themselves more to be able to change society than they would trust authority to fix things for them.
If people were dumb enough to believe him there’s not much anyone can do about it other than hope they figure out they were duped.
How about this revolutionary idea: They aren’t all dumb.
Yes, most of them are hateful too. Especially the ones that aren’t both.
You’re trying to tell me that half of all American voters all are hateful morons?
I’d say hateful AND/OR morons. Some are just hateful. Some are just morons. Some are both.
And it wouldn’t be the first time in history a massive segment of a population was and/or. Propaganda and shitty culture are a hell of a drug.
I mean the proof is in the pudding. Half of voting Americans voted for a convicted felon, adjudicated rapist, lifelong conman, and probable pedophile who instigated an insurrection and utterly failed at his previous term as president. What else would you consider them other than hateful and/or morons?
Voterparticipation was 64% So more like 30%.
People can be hateful AND other things. They aren’t raging monsters but for one reason or another when making one of the most important desicions they let themselves be guided by hate, doesn’t mean they don’t love their dog or hug their kids.
You slso don’t need to put all the blame on them, propaganda is a powerful tool,they might very well have turned out fairly decent without it. They aren’t born like that but it doesn’t change what they have become.
No I’d say it’s most of the voters, but yeah a solid half the full population sounds about accurate.
The only people that voted for him that aren’t dumb are the abnormally wealthy who knew they could benefit financially. And they represent such a small percentage of the whole that it’s reasonable to simply state all Trump supporters are fucking idiots.
And you could even call that small percentage stupid because they’re shitting where they eat. If you live in a country you are actively voting to make worse for the vast majority…well, that’s bad business in the big picture. They’re focused on short term gains.
My guess is your intimating that trump and musk rigged the election? Because I don’t think it’s that far fetched of a theory.
I’m not saying they did, but I will say I wouldn’t be surprised if they did.
Not being suspicious of a man who is notorious for cheating, lying, stealing, etc… try not to cheat, lie and steal an election that puts him in a very powerful position, I feel is lazy and dangerous.
especially when every accusation they make is basically confession.
When you artificially limit the number of political parties to two, people are forced into voting against things, rather then for them.
Also it limits heavily the competition in the electoral system, which leads to incredibly weak leadership and a stagnation of new ideas and people.
Replacing First-past-the-post voting with a more representative voting system would give voters the freedom to transfer their vote if their preference doesn’t win. No spoiler effect
This keeps the feet of larger political parties in the fire, lest they are replaced with more representative political parties.
But this was all stuff that should have happened decades ago. The horses have escaped the stable and the barn is on fire. None the less, this is all something to keep in mind when new countries are formed out of the ashes of what was.
Strap up and stay frosty out there strangers. Peace.
A fatal mix of bigotry and stupidity.
I don’t like communism. I don’t like capitalism. I don’t give a fuck about your petty squabbles and philisophical debates.
But I do find the imbalance of wealth power concerning and I’m supporting whoever will do something against it.
But I do find the imbalance of wealth power concerning and I’m supporting whoever will do something against it.
This is an issue related to the political and economical system that you said you don’t care about
You don’t understand.
80% of people will think you’re an idiot if you advocate for communism.
60% of people will think you’re an idiot if you advocate for capitalism.
90% of people will agree with you if you tell them the growing power of elites and the gap between the rich and the poor is a problem.
If you’re trying to convince people that communism is a great idea, you’re fighting a lost cause. If you use either the word communism or capitalism, you have already lost the argument and people’s attention. On the other hand, if you address actual problems, people will support you. Language matters!
(Btw, I pulled these numbers out of my ass. But you get the idea.)
The majority of people a century ago though you are stupid if you support women voting. It is a shame that most people has no principle anymore and abondon easily when something is too hard
WRONG.
In Magastan there are NOT two classes. There’s just rich people and some subset of human waste that apparently think of themselves as people with rights (that doesn’t make them people in the eyes of the only class existing there).
Under Communism, Man exploits Man, but under Capitalism it’s the other way around!
(Sorry, I’ll return this joke to the museum now)
It’s two sides of the same coin.
Anarchism is the best solution for everyone but i think this is only feasible in a planet where everyone shares the same values, customs and norms. To allow mutual trust and respect not to pilfer and attack each other. The best example is in Dune with the Fremens. Each communities still have local quirks and there is slight cultural differences between the Northerners and Southerners but they all aid each other and identify as one people. The threat is from outside Arakkis. So, even anarchist values would have to extend universal wide for anarchism proper to work.
anarchism is idealist bullshit debunked by engles himself in 1st communist internationale. Cry
deleted by creator
Why do you take the word of someone whose ideology collapsed under its own weight? Cope.
“collapsed under its own weight”
JFC go read history blud.
Cope
amrikkkans and europeans after invading, bombing and overthrowing every single socialist experiment:
See socialism doesnt work
dumbfuck
Russkies after invading and bombing and overthrowing every small countries and then collapsing anyway.
See socialism indeed does not work.
Simperialist.
You hate everyone cos you lost. That’s why you invaded a country 1/5 your size and into day 1,664 of three day special operations. You enjoy being a cuck and that’s why you are letting Putin sell your kids and grandkids to CCP vassalage.
Old clown yells at clouds! 🤡🤡
guy who thinks communists support modern russia or russian invasion of ukraine
dumbfuck, russia is literally a liberal bougeosie state, it came into existence due to cooperation of western libs and russian nationalists lmao
