It’s funny because most communists seem to want to be the ones on top by trying to impose communism on everybody else.
Why not start at the bottom and learn how to cooperate with people there? Make some friends at work and see if they can help you get a better job. Put that philosophy into practice in the here and now instead of dreaming of some grand utopia where everyone willingly cooperates with everyone else everywhere and all the time.
It’s funny because most communists seem to want to be the ones on top by trying to impose communism on everybody else.
According to who, capitalist media? Have you ever actually exposed yourself to what communists think and believe, or are you afraid of a spectre?
Why not start at the bottom and learn how to cooperate with people there?
The communists, infamous for avoiding rank and file and mass line strategies, as well as other strategies that relied heavily on creating popular support
Make some friends at work and see if they can help you get a better job.
I’m already super cushy in my job, I dont want involuntary homelessness to exist, and I also don’t want homeless people to be killed. I want kids to be able to go to bed and not be hungry. That isnt possible under capitalism.
Put that philosophy into practice in the here and now instead of dreaming of some grand utopia where everyone willingly cooperates with everyone else everywhere and all the time.
We don’t think it will be utopia. We don’t think everyone will willingly cooperate all the time. If you think this is what communists believe, you haven’t read a lot of communist thought. It feels like you are just throwing cliches at the wall and trying to box with a strawman, and it is kind of weird to watch.
Do you understand the notion that people will generally cooperate when it is in their mutual selfish interest to cooperate? Does that make sense to you? Or do you reject even that notion?
Have you ever actually exposed yourself to what communists think and believe, or are you afraid of a spectre?
I’m being exposed to it on Lemmy nearly every single day.
I’m already super cushy in my job, I dont want involuntary homelessness to exist, and I also don’t want homeless people to be killed. I want kids to be able to go to bed and not be hungry. That isnt possible under capitalism.
Volunteer at a soup kitchen, donate to a homeless shelter, etc.
Do you understand the notion that people will generally cooperate when it is in their mutual selfish interest to cooperate? Does that make sense to you? Or do you reject even that notion?
Yes, that totally makes sense. But in my experience, this works best when people freely choose to cooperate because they realize it’s in their own self-interest, instead of having cooperation imposed on them by force.
I’m being exposed to it on Lemmy nearly every single day.
Okay, then explain the difference between scientific and utopian socialism, what what differentiates labor from labor power in the context of surplus labor value extraction?
The low bar there is my fault though, I should have asked if you were educated on what communists believed.
Volunteer at a soup kitchen, donate to a homeless shelter, etc.
Put a bandaid on a gunshot wound while you’re at it.
Yes, that totally makes sense. But in my experience, this works best when people freely choose to cooperate because they realize it’s in their own self-interest, instead of having cooperation imposed on them by force.
That has literally happened, can you name any successful socialist revolution that didn’t involve education and the creation of mass popular support?
Russian communism: ~5M dead in the Holodemor
Chinese communism: ~15-55M dead in the Great Famine
Cambodian communism: >1M dead in the Killing Fields
inb4 not real communism
Okay, then explain the difference between scientific and utopian socialism, what what differentiates labor from labor power in the context of surplus labor value extraction?
Muh “you can’t criticize socialism because you don’t understand THEORY”. You probably don’t understand capitalism either outside of socialist critiques of it. Then how can you be so certain of what capitalists believe?
Put a bandaid on a gunshot wound while you’re at it.
“I can’t help EVERYONE so I’m just not gonna help ANYONE”.
*goes off and tries to convince people to follow an ideology that only works if everyone believes in it.
can you name any successful socialist revolution that didn’t involve education and the creation of mass popular support?
Can you name one socialist revolution that hasn’t involved massive amounts of murder and violence?
Chinese communism: ~15-55M dead in the Great Famine
Even with these inflated numbers, they are no match for the numbers of people intentionally killed by capitalism and feudalism, let alone starvation under capitalism and feudalism.
Plugging the book “late Victorian holocausts”
Cambodian communism: >1M dead in the Killing Fields
inb4 not real communism
If you believe the Cambodians were communists, you have to believe that the nazis were. Except in Pol Pots case, he only claimed to be socialist for a few years of their decades long operations. I am choosing you believe you’re not that gullible so I must assume you are ignorant of their history.
Muh “you can’t criticize socialism because you don’t understand THEORY”. You probably don’t understand capitalism either outside of socialist critiques of it. Then how can you be so certain of what capitalists believe?
Literally took years of capitalist economics in high school and college, it is one of the reasons I’m a communist.
“I can’t help EVERYONE so I’m just not gonna help ANYONE”.
More like “the issue is systemic and requires systemic solutions, not charity”
*goes off and tries to convince people to follow an ideology that only works if everyone believes in it.
Chinese feudal landlords didn’t believe in socialism, that didn’t stop the communists from doing land reform.
Can you name one socialist revolution that hasn’t involved massive amounts of murder and violence?
By definition revolutions involve violence. Are you condemning the capitalist revolutions that threw off the monarchies? The status quo involved comparatively massive amounts of violence then, and it does now.
But also, an example of socialists gaining power through the ballot box was in Chile. The US ended up funding, training, and equipping right wing death squads to kill (and worse) Chilean communists, teachers, trade unionists, indigenous people, and random people. Chile became an extraordinary violent right wing capitalist dictatorship.
If you believe the Cambodians were communists, you have to believe that the nazis were.
I mean, Hitler very clearly wrote in Mein Kampf that he DID take inspiration from socialism, except that, like all other communist dictators before or after him, he thought that HE had found the missing ingredient to make it work.
Literally took years of capitalist economics in high school and college, it is one of the reasons I’m a communist.
Hah, imagine getting a “capitalist” education from people who don’t have to worry about their own job security because they have tenure. Isn’t that just like getting a communist education from a Wall Street CEO?
Chinese feudal landlords didn’t believe in socialism, that didn’t stop the communists from doing land reform.
Yes. The secret ingredient was (and always is) called violence.
By definition revolutions involve violence.
Okay, at least you’re honest enough to admit that.
Are you condemning the capitalist revolutions that threw off the monarchies? The status quo involved comparatively massive amounts of violence then, and it does now.
Yes, I condemn all violence, capitalist or otherwise. But I honestly don’t experience capitalism as particularly violent. My biggest successes all came through non-violent means, by educating myself and improving my technical and people skills. Amazingly, it turns out that if you’re willing to learn what others will pay you for, more often than not, they’ll actually just hand you money without you having to make any threats about taking over their whole company.
I mean, Hitler very clearly wrote in Mein Kampf that he DID take inspiration from socialism, except that, like all other communist dictators before or after him, he thought that HE had found the missing ingredient to make it work.
He also very explicitly said that the nazis weren’t socialist, and all of the parties policies were hard capitalist.
Hah, imagine getting a “capitalist” education from people who don’t have to worry about their own job security because they have tenure. Isn’t that just like getting a communist education from a Wall Street CEO?
We live in a capitalist society. Any attempt to claim this isn’t capitalism and we have a shift toward actual capitalism is an attempt to sell you fascism.
Also pretty sure most of them were adjuncts.
Yes. The secret ingredient was (and always is) called violence.
Yes. When they removed the secret ingredient, the landlords could not maintain their property relations with the peasants. That is correct.
Yes, I condemn all violence, capitalist or otherwise. But I honestly don’t experience capitalism as particularly violent.
Well then either you’re really sheltered or you haven’t been paying attention.
My biggest successes all came through non-violent means, by educating myself and improving my technical and people skills. Amazingly, it turns out that if you’re willing to learn what others will pay you for, more often than not, they’ll actually just hand you money without you having to make any threats about taking over their whole company.
Oh, well if it worked for you, I guess those slave laborers can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps. And all those genocide victims should have just spent more time educating themselves.
He also very explicitly said that the nazis weren’t socialist, and all of the parties policies were hard capitalist.
The word “Nazi” is literally short for “Nationalsozialist” (i.e. national socialist). Notice anything here?
The most prominent distinction he made between national socialism and socialism is in the word “national”. Socialists are international, while the Nazis were concerned with their own countrymen’s welfare only.
We live in a capitalist society. Any attempt to claim this isn’t capitalism and we have a shift toward actual capitalism is an attempt to sell you fascism.
What then is social security, medicare, unemployment insurance, etc.? Those are all socialist programs. We can argue about their quality or effectiveness all day long but pure capitalism would get rid of them immediately. Also I don’t think you have any idea of what fascism actually is.
Yes. When they removed the secret ingredient, the landlords could not maintain their property relations with the peasants. That is correct.
What on earth are you talking about?
Well then either you’re really sheltered or you haven’t been paying attention.
Not at all, I’ve certainly experienced my share of violence, but after doing a lot of research and introspection, I came to the conclusion that it’s not capitalism that’s primarily to blame for that, it was how I engaged with it that was the problem. If you stop fighting capitalism, it stops fighting you, too. Consider being thrown in a deep body of water without knowing how to swim. If you frantically fight to stay afloat you’re just gonna wear yourself out and then start to drown. But if you relax and stop resisting, and just focus on your breathing instead, you realize you can just float on the surface without working too hard.
Oh, well if it worked for you, I guess those slave laborers can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps. And all those genocide victims should have just spent more time educating themselves.
Again, not entirely sure what you’re on about here, but in case you consider yourself one of them, I am literally trying to hand you the key to your cage. But you DO have to use it on your own and let yourself out if you actually want to be free from oppression.
It’s funny because most communists seem to want to be the ones on top by trying to impose communism on everybody else.
Why not start at the bottom and learn how to cooperate with people there? Make some friends at work and see if they can help you get a better job. Put that philosophy into practice in the here and now instead of dreaming of some grand utopia where everyone willingly cooperates with everyone else everywhere and all the time.
According to who, capitalist media? Have you ever actually exposed yourself to what communists think and believe, or are you afraid of a spectre?
The communists, infamous for avoiding rank and file and mass line strategies, as well as other strategies that relied heavily on creating popular support
I’m already super cushy in my job, I dont want involuntary homelessness to exist, and I also don’t want homeless people to be killed. I want kids to be able to go to bed and not be hungry. That isnt possible under capitalism.
We don’t think it will be utopia. We don’t think everyone will willingly cooperate all the time. If you think this is what communists believe, you haven’t read a lot of communist thought. It feels like you are just throwing cliches at the wall and trying to box with a strawman, and it is kind of weird to watch.
Do you understand the notion that people will generally cooperate when it is in their mutual selfish interest to cooperate? Does that make sense to you? Or do you reject even that notion?
According to history.
I’m being exposed to it on Lemmy nearly every single day.
Volunteer at a soup kitchen, donate to a homeless shelter, etc.
Yes, that totally makes sense. But in my experience, this works best when people freely choose to cooperate because they realize it’s in their own self-interest, instead of having cooperation imposed on them by force.
Who’s history?
Okay, then explain the difference between scientific and utopian socialism, what what differentiates labor from labor power in the context of surplus labor value extraction?
The low bar there is my fault though, I should have asked if you were educated on what communists believed.
Put a bandaid on a gunshot wound while you’re at it.
That has literally happened, can you name any successful socialist revolution that didn’t involve education and the creation of mass popular support?
World history.
Russian communism: ~5M dead in the Holodemor
Chinese communism: ~15-55M dead in the Great Famine
Cambodian communism: >1M dead in the Killing Fields
inb4 not real communism
Muh “you can’t criticize socialism because you don’t understand THEORY”. You probably don’t understand capitalism either outside of socialist critiques of it. Then how can you be so certain of what capitalists believe?
“I can’t help EVERYONE so I’m just not gonna help ANYONE”.
*goes off and tries to convince people to follow an ideology that only works if everyone believes in it.
Can you name one socialist revolution that hasn’t involved massive amounts of murder and violence?
Even with these inflated numbers, they are no match for the numbers of people intentionally killed by capitalism and feudalism, let alone starvation under capitalism and feudalism.
Plugging the book “late Victorian holocausts”
If you believe the Cambodians were communists, you have to believe that the nazis were. Except in Pol Pots case, he only claimed to be socialist for a few years of their decades long operations. I am choosing you believe you’re not that gullible so I must assume you are ignorant of their history.
Literally took years of capitalist economics in high school and college, it is one of the reasons I’m a communist.
More like “the issue is systemic and requires systemic solutions, not charity”
Chinese feudal landlords didn’t believe in socialism, that didn’t stop the communists from doing land reform.
By definition revolutions involve violence. Are you condemning the capitalist revolutions that threw off the monarchies? The status quo involved comparatively massive amounts of violence then, and it does now.
But also, an example of socialists gaining power through the ballot box was in Chile. The US ended up funding, training, and equipping right wing death squads to kill (and worse) Chilean communists, teachers, trade unionists, indigenous people, and random people. Chile became an extraordinary violent right wing capitalist dictatorship.
I mean, Hitler very clearly wrote in Mein Kampf that he DID take inspiration from socialism, except that, like all other communist dictators before or after him, he thought that HE had found the missing ingredient to make it work.
Hah, imagine getting a “capitalist” education from people who don’t have to worry about their own job security because they have tenure. Isn’t that just like getting a communist education from a Wall Street CEO?
Yes. The secret ingredient was (and always is) called violence.
Okay, at least you’re honest enough to admit that.
Yes, I condemn all violence, capitalist or otherwise. But I honestly don’t experience capitalism as particularly violent. My biggest successes all came through non-violent means, by educating myself and improving my technical and people skills. Amazingly, it turns out that if you’re willing to learn what others will pay you for, more often than not, they’ll actually just hand you money without you having to make any threats about taking over their whole company.
He also very explicitly said that the nazis weren’t socialist, and all of the parties policies were hard capitalist.
We live in a capitalist society. Any attempt to claim this isn’t capitalism and we have a shift toward actual capitalism is an attempt to sell you fascism.
Also pretty sure most of them were adjuncts.
Yes. When they removed the secret ingredient, the landlords could not maintain their property relations with the peasants. That is correct.
Well then either you’re really sheltered or you haven’t been paying attention.
Oh, well if it worked for you, I guess those slave laborers can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps. And all those genocide victims should have just spent more time educating themselves.
The word “Nazi” is literally short for “Nationalsozialist” (i.e. national socialist). Notice anything here?
The most prominent distinction he made between national socialism and socialism is in the word “national”. Socialists are international, while the Nazis were concerned with their own countrymen’s welfare only.
What then is social security, medicare, unemployment insurance, etc.? Those are all socialist programs. We can argue about their quality or effectiveness all day long but pure capitalism would get rid of them immediately. Also I don’t think you have any idea of what fascism actually is.
What on earth are you talking about?
Not at all, I’ve certainly experienced my share of violence, but after doing a lot of research and introspection, I came to the conclusion that it’s not capitalism that’s primarily to blame for that, it was how I engaged with it that was the problem. If you stop fighting capitalism, it stops fighting you, too. Consider being thrown in a deep body of water without knowing how to swim. If you frantically fight to stay afloat you’re just gonna wear yourself out and then start to drown. But if you relax and stop resisting, and just focus on your breathing instead, you realize you can just float on the surface without working too hard.
Again, not entirely sure what you’re on about here, but in case you consider yourself one of them, I am literally trying to hand you the key to your cage. But you DO have to use it on your own and let yourself out if you actually want to be free from oppression.