1817
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2025
1817 points (98.8% liked)
Microblog Memes
8156 readers
1677 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Come on in. I define myself as a centrist liberal. I think Israel is a criminal apartheid government. I think healthcare is a human right. I also think a market economy is the most efficient way to enrich the proletariat so Marx can stuff it.
And you can be wrong about that last sentence.
You ignore the unequal exchange and imperialism of developing nations the US dominates. Those people are workers too.
That just means that the US dominates and exploits people, it doesn't mean that market economies inherently lead to that. China implemented market economies within its centrally planned system for a reason.
Yes, but they said it is "the most efficient way to enrich the proletariat". Market economies can be fine but to place the emphasis on it being the driver is just silly.
It doesn't need to be the driver to be a necessary component or catalyst.
And it isn't.
I never mentioned the US
OK, there's market economies everywhere. Why is wealth so unequally distributed, within those countries and globally?
Why is a dog's asshole so delicious?
There isn't a single example of Marxism actually helping. Ever.
There is no example of marxism being seriously implemented, it’s always been used as aesthetics and excuses for authortarian government who want total economical control.
Those governments never implement true workplace democracy or worker control over the means of production.
That doesn’t mean marxism can’t work, just no one’s seriously tried. At a small scale it definitely can work, anarchist communes are often successful, despite the best efforts of governments to sabotage them however they can.
Anarchy and Marxism aren't the same thing, lmao
Anarchist communes tend to be collectivist, (anarcho-communist).
Ukraine Free Territory, Rojava, etc.
There it is. No true Marxist
If 100 people came and claimed to save a forest by setting fire to it, will you say that everyone who tries to save a forest actually wants to set it on fire?
lol wut?
E: this is some weird leftie "gotcha" copypasta, right? Whatever.
Could you please explain why you think giving examples for countries that claimed to be socialist being bad is enough to claim socialism is bad?
I don't understand the question
I probably didnt phrase it clearly the first 2 times
Could you please expand on this reply?
In a nutshell, "There has never been 'true' Communism, therefore you cannot criticize 'actual' Communism"
Even though definitions of communism varies from person to person, all that i have seen share in common the goal of a communist society
There are also many types of socialism that cant really be grouped together to say that if one doesnt work, none work
It works fine up until about 100 people
Can you answer the question? Either one because the latter would at least be funny.
Sure. Wealth inequality is so rampant because most governments look after the wealthy while ignoring the poor and giving lip service to the middle class
E: gonna have to ask the dog about the second question. Much like Rocky Mountain Oysters I'll never know because I'll never try.
Ok, how do we solve that? More markets? Based on what you said above, that sounds like your solution.
I'm of the opinion that workers need ownership of the companies they work for instead of capitalist ownership, but that's just me. After all, they're the ones doing the work by definition.
Cool! Get together and create a company. Boom, all those people own it.
"Don't like slavery? Well start a farm picking cotten with all of your non-slaves then! Easy." - You in pre-civil war America probably.
All well and good, but that doesn't change how the system in of itself is exploitative (obviously less so than slavery), and we should not allow such strong private property rights. Capitalists are leeching your labor value, don't lick their boots in the process.
C'mon! Who owns the means?
A tiny minority of people with capital, at the expense of the wide majority of Laborers.
What's the alternative, the state leeching my labor value? How do the workers own the means of production if they don't create the means of production?
Someone has to provide the capital (oooh, scary word) to start the whole enterprise. If that's you and me coming together with a couple of computers and a grand idea or a truck and set of tools and we're going to go repair people's houses, the market is the best way for us to thrive.
No. You need labor and materials extracted by labor. Labor built the computers. Labor mined the minerals to make the computers. Labor built the factory that makes the computers. Labor operated the factory that makes the computers. Labor uses tools built by labor to repair people's houses as a laborer.
The only thing a capitalist does is own that factory or building or enterprise, and pay workers less than what it generates. That's the definition of profit.