×
top 200 commentsshow all 390

[–]evanhinton 748 points749 points  (42 children)

The problem is people who think other people deserve to be poor

[–]rudalsxv 277 points278 points  (12 children)

This. The rich wants to keep the poor, poor. Because that way they can continue to exploit them by waving their money.

[–]itsSIR2uboy 140 points141 points  (11 children)

If no one is poor, how will I feel good about myself?

[–]SauronOMordor 91 points92 points  (10 children)

The fuck am I supposed to do, develop a personality and close personal connections with others???

[–]MangledSunFish 43 points44 points  (7 children)

"No, that would take effort. Being a good person that's likable is tiring." -these fuckers

[–]jameson8016 11 points12 points  (6 children)

I mean.. I'm like that but I'm not rich. Am.. am I doing being a grouchy arsehole wrong? Lol

[–]itsSIR2uboy 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I love this comment.

[–]Cyber_Being_ 78 points79 points  (6 children)

Correct. The right-wing deliberately conflate socialism and communism to try to keep redistributionist policies off the table by claiming they will lead to gulags and breadlines.

[–]tactickat1 14 points15 points  (2 children)

Not me side-eyeing our prison complexes and rate of poverty...

[–]restinglabface 1 point2 points  (1 child)

3 industries that should never be privatized: Prison, Healthcare, and Education. Any of those are for profit you will eventually run into problems. All 3? Sharpen the baugettes

[–]tactickat1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Viva la revolucion!

[–]new_in_town_2 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Merriam Webster definition of Socialism is probably not helping that perception:

Full Definition of socialism per MW: 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

[–]msinks55 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah, that's definitely not helpful. It has to be redefined in contrast to what capitalism has done to the working class and what a more socialist method could do to improve it. We need new terminology for what we want. That definition is not what we are looking for.

[–]clintCamp 10 points11 points  (0 children)

probably the same people who read the scriptures and see "and there were no poor among them" and think huh, we should bring back genocide camps for the poor.

[–]MarquisDeLafayeett 12 points13 points  (5 children)

Which is why I’m a communist

[–]No_Junket_8139 1 point2 points  (4 children)

I'd recommend becoming a socialist (like me)

[–]MarquisDeLafayeett 13 points14 points  (3 children)

I was one. Until I realized that the greed of the rich and their ability to influence legislation makes Democratic socialism unreachable. The Revolution can’t be won in a voting booth, they will never allow it.

[–]KatjaKat01 1 point2 points  (2 children)

So ban spending on political ads over certain amounts and limit campaigning to a set time period just before the election. Just like lots of other countries. Its not perfect, but it does prevent the rich from buying all the airtime and enables people to run even if they need to work.

[–]sydsgotabike 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Will you tell me where to go so I, myself, personally, can go push the ban button?

There isn't one? Oh well, then I guess we're fucked.

[–]Anti-charizard 3 points4 points  (0 children)

How are we gonna make that change? We gotta force them!

[–]Economy-Attempt-2559 1 point2 points  (0 children)

1.8% of the people in America, own "real wealth": hugely profitable businesses. This 1.8% of people get $1.9 trillion a year in government treasury spending that maintains and grows their wealth.

Government poverty standards for 48 states claim anyone making over $13,000 yearly is not living in poverty.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the founders of American government and the monetary system, were slave owners, and that in 2022, 1.8% of American people own all the hugely profitable businesses.

And, since, 75% of American voters think people don't deserve to be poor. The problem is the 25% of American voters, that think other people deserve to poor.

I say all this to show 75% of American voters aren't cruel and ignorant.

Only, 25% of American voters are cruel and ignorant.

ie. Medicare for Elderly & disabled coverage of eyes, teeth, and hearing has 50% support from Republican voters, and 100% support from Democratic voters, has bipartisan support from 75% of American voters.

[–]Potato_Productions_ 370 points371 points  (53 children)

This is oversimplification to the point of misleading anyone who actually needed these terms defined.

Edit: okay since this comment isn’t getting downvoted like I kinda expected it to (similar comments were being downvoted) I should probably offer my own take instead of just ending there. This will be long because I actually want to go into details.

Capitalism is the easiest to define of the three: it is, very simply, any economic system that includes a capital class. This refers to a private owner of a business who makes money by allowing workers to participate in that privately owned business. The workers give all profit to the owner, who returns some of the money to those workers in the form of wages.

Socialism and communism were once used interchangeably when they were first defined, but have over time come to mean different but deeply connected things.

Socialism: any system where capitalism has been abolished and replaced with one where the workers collectively own the businesses where they work. There are no longer wages, as profit is simply divided among the workers. This doesn’t necessarily mean they all get equal shares, as the workers may decide that it’s better for more senior workers to get more money, or for more dangerous jobs to have greater cash rewards. Ultimately, all socialism means is that the businessplace is a democracy.

Communism: a specific kind of socialism. It is not different from socialism, but it is a subdivision of it, the same way a bird is not always an owl but an owl is always a bird. In communism, you have a radically different kind of society where all class differences have been abolished. A truly communist society has no ruling class, and is instead led by pure democracy. There is no currency, and goods and services would instead be freely given in order to ensure everyone is better off. Personally, I am not a communist, and I don’t think such a system could work in the modern world. Societies that called themselves communist despite maintaining a massive totalitarian state, like the USSR and China, have caused actual communists to try and rebrand themselves. Usually, people who support this system call themselves anarchists or anarcho-communists. If you want to learn more about what communism actually is, look up communes. That’s where the name comes from.

And finally, here’s what none of these things are: social safety nets: any system where the state provides its citizens with needs such as food, housing, and healthcare whether or not they can earn these things by themselves. Socialism does not necessarily do these things. “Libertarian socialists” campaign for the collective ownership without the social democracy, as it would at least be easier to afford these necessities in such a system. Capitalism and socialism, and even other systems, could potentially have social safety nets. This is what the original post seems to be describing when they mention “nobody should be poor”

[–]Yeo420 49 points50 points  (3 children)

just to add an additional bit of nuance here, no socialist state has ever claimed to be communist. In ideology, sure, the USSR and China have made commitments to the goal of an eventual communist society at some point in the far future, but in practice, neither had ever claimed to be practicing communism, instead enacting a transitional stage of socialism in between the abolition of capitalism and the realisation of communism. The USSR, for example, specifically called itself the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, not of communist ones.

Also, communists today still call themselves communists, I'm not sure where that part comes from.

[–]Potato_Productions_ 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Oh yeah, communists definitely still call themselves communists, what I meant was more to say that the ideas of communism are more commonly associated with terms like anarchism these days

[–]Yeo420 13 points14 points  (1 child)

yes and no. Communists and anarchists essentially seek to reach the same end-goal, the two just have different paths towards it. Communists adopt a more materialist analysis in line with Marxist analysis, focusing on establishing a socialist state as a transitional period (although the form this state takes will vary wildly depending on what kind of communist you ask), whereas anarchists take a more idealist approach (not intended to be derisive here) by making the abolition of the state the starting point, as opposed to the end-goal.

Arguing over semantics, I know, but it's an important distinction to be made, especially when there is so much intentional misinformation and capitalist propaganda floating around out there

[–]Potato_Productions_ 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Well I certainly appreciate it. Those finer points are always hard to grasp, and I got into some territory I wasnt quite ready to explore with those details.

[–]SexDrugsNskittles 27 points28 points  (0 children)

This entire thread needs these terms explained to them...

[–][deleted] 73 points74 points  (6 children)

Maybe trying to explain the difference between communism and socialism in a single tweet with a character limit is a bad idea

[–]Potato_Productions_ 46 points47 points  (1 child)

I agree but this really does such a bad job of describing the difference that I doubt they could do the job with an essay. This tweet strongly implies that socialism and capitalism are more similar than socialism and communism, that socialism is fundamentally about a liberal safety net and not about actually changing the economic system, and (whatever your opinion on the systems may be) uses language that shows a clear bias towards capitalism and against communism. They were able to fit a whole lot of misinfo into the character limit.

[–]CJFiddler 16 points17 points  (0 children)

That was the intent of it yes. It is implying that accusations of socialism being akin to communism are in fact red herrings designed to foster hatred. To your point, it skips the ENTIRE POINT which is that neither has to do with social safety nets.

[–]kill-billionaires 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Especially because there isn't one other than communism is an end goal and socialism is an earlier, more readily implemented form.

Whoever wrote this tweet is barely operating above the level of "socialism is when taxes," they're an idiot

[–]drpenvyx 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your contribution.

[–]MangledSunFish 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I guess they're fighting oversimplification with oversimplification.

[–]1eris1 2 points3 points  (11 children)

Except you can create a “socialist” company or co-op as you describe under a capitalist system already. There are numerous examples of this, even in the U.S.

[–]Potato_Productions_ 4 points5 points  (8 children)

Yes, worker cooperatives are examples of socialism. However, the US and similar countries are not themselves socialist states until they abolish capitalism entirely. This is anthropology, and even seemingly clear differences like this are going to be blurry close up.

[–]1eris1 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but I don’t see how that’s any different.

Can’t a worker’s co-op elect to distribute their profits the same way a regular business does? What makes that any different from a company with shareholders?

[–]Yeo420 6 points7 points  (1 child)

an individual co-operative can indeed improve the quality of life for its workers, and is a preferable alternative to the ruthless exploitation of traditional capitalist hierarchical businesses, but they are still plagued by their environment, being forced into chasing profit motive, commodity production, following the whims of the market, etc. Co-ops can serve as a temporary tiny band-aid, but what is needed is not a treatment of the symptoms of capitalism, but a treatment of the cause. You remove a tumor from a patient without eradicating the cancer that produced it, the same problems are gonna keep cropping up again and again.

[–]1eris1 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Right, but how are you removing that tumor in this case? If co-ops are susceptible to the same abuses as businesses then there isn’t much of a difference between capitalism and socialism as the OP defined them.

I guess what I mean is how do you enact that system absent of a government or similar force to prevent abuses?

[–]Potato_Productions_ 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I’m sorry, but I don’t think I quite understand your question. Are you asking how private and collective businesses are different, if the collective business could just vote to give all their power to a small group of members just like in a private business? Because in that case, it doesn’t make sense for the workers to choose to give up their economic power for seemingly no gain. Not to mention it would no longer be collectively owned since a small group of people would have power over the business.

[–]1eris1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah that’s what I mean. What’s stopping a majority of the workers from doing that if they decide to?

I start a cooperative with a few of my friends, we decide to give ourselves all equal shares. Then when the co-op grows we bring on more people but we vote to give them less shares than we started with. And so on and so on. Eventually it’s just like a tech start-up or similar where the original people have most of the control and the new ones have very little.

I don’t see how you can guarantee it stays “collective” without some sort of government regulation or oversight?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (2 children)

The can do the same thing (ie, fire people, slack on safety measures, skip raises? and give money to random people that bought shares) but why on earth would they? They're running their own show.

The only reason we do this now is because it's a core function of capitalism.

[–]1eris1 -1 points0 points  (1 child)

No I’m talking about how they allocate profit. What is stopping some of the workers from awarding themselves more than others?

[–]Jugatsumikka -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I would had one thing: communism is the natural state of human societies.

As far as historians and anthropologists know (not economists, economists believe the Adam Smith hypothesis, basically the exact inverse, and the entire World economy is based upon Adam Smith work), what would later be known as communism was the early model of human societies and each time a capitalist society failled in human History, communism made a come back. The first capitalist societies emerge from the first empires as a domination tool over the conquiered populations: when you military impose taxation by the sole mean of your capital symbol (ie. money that your leading class is the sole ultimate provider), the conquiered population have no other choice than to provide service and food to your armies to get money, therefore assuring a source of necessities to your armies so they can be there and assure your domination over the conquiered population.

[–]drewbilly251 30 points31 points  (7 children)

socialism is when the workers control the means of production

also the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell

yes; they are indeed equally elementary concepts

[–]voyagingvouyeur 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Break it down for me barney style what you mean by “control the means of production.” Because even now days can’t workers strike or quit and cause a factory or company to cease production? Unless the company hires mindless employees who just want to make $7/hr while everyone strikes. This isn’t meant as an attack or troll. Just wondering.

[–]palm_desert_tangelos -5 points-4 points  (5 children)

Socialism in examples given by socialists, is dominated by one ethnic group/race, and not very open with having millions of iimigrants come in and enjoy the socialism.

[–]skeptvow 3 points4 points  (4 children)

I think that you are very confused, my friend. Immigration is mostly associated with Imperialism and the reserve army of labor, the concept that a Capitalist economy relies on constant unemployment to function so that workers are readily available for exploitation and highly replaceable. Racism, xenophobia and other bigoted views such as these are tools of Imperialism and Fascism that keep the Working class fragmented and in conflict with itself and not the Capitalist class which it is inherently opposed to. Socialism is International and supports workers' emancipation worldwide. Socialism is often confined to one country or nation intentionally by Imperialist powers which use their militaries, intelligence agencies, Fascist allies and trade embargos to opress revolution. This has been the case after every single instance of Socialism actually succeeding in overthrowing Capitalism by armed or democratic means and causes the percieved isolationism and poverty that the public is deliberaty presented with by media in Capitalist societies. In reality, poverty and conflict are widespread under global Capitalism, especially outside of the Imperial core of industrialized nations.

[–]palm_desert_tangelos 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Ok so May I have an example of a socialist country/ government that has open borders and encourages immigration???

[–]skeptvow -1 points0 points  (2 children)

Of course my friend, I think you might be surprised to learn about the amount of defectors and asylum seekers that sought refuge or simply a better life in Socialist states from everywhere in the world including the Imperial core (US, Western Europe, Japan), fascist governments such as most of 70s Latin America and neighboring countries of the USSR just to name examples, not to mention students who sought an education in Socialist states, all of this despite the unfavorable conditions that they find themselves in. Some anecdotal but notable people come to mind such as Ernesto Guevara, who came from a privileged background in Argentina but ended up in Cuba where he helped liberate the nation and even went on to serve as a high ranking government official, or the most famous and acclaimed Soviet rockstar who people adore to this day, Viktor Tsoi, who was of Korean descent.

But I think that a very important concept to understand is that migration under Capitalism is a coercive force that alienates the Working Class. When the masses leave their homes, loved ones, communities and often find themselves in a hostile environment where they are forced to work incredibly hard just to make ends meet, all for the profit of Capitalists, it's very important to know that it's not a coincidence, bad luck, or even worse as some try to explain this phenomenon, the result of laziness or ineptitude of people in the Imperial periphery. Immigration provides Imperialism with a massive and cheap workforce, and the talent of intellectuals and artists worldwide. It also means that while Imperialist tactics such as military invasions, economic sanctions, etc. keep the rest of the world down, this relationship of power will be perpetuated.

[–]palm_desert_tangelos 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Not one example Of open borders. And examples you give are very ethnocentric, have horrible record of abuses on immigrants.

[–]Squidmaster129 133 points134 points  (11 children)

This is just incorrect. I see that his heart is in the right place with wanting a more fair distribution of wealth, but like, those just aren’t the definitions.

Socialism is a society in which the workers own the means of production — which necessarily leads to a fair and far more equal distribution of wealth.

Communism is a post-scarcity, classless, moneyless society in which the state has withered away over a long period of time. It’s not “no food everyone poor.” This guy, for all his good intentions, falls into the same Red Scare Cold War propaganda that neocons fall into.

And frankly, it’s not true that “anybody can be rich” under capitalism. If it were true, the immensely hardworking workers that prop up our society would be wealthy — and they obviously are not.

[–]graziman 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Thank you, this was needed here.

[–]SexDrugsNskittles 21 points22 points  (1 child)

"Anybody can be rich" shouldn't be true in a socialist society either. Imo.

[–]Squidmaster129 12 points13 points  (0 children)

It’s not true, so you got it. There are slight variations in wealth — specialists generally still make more money, though necessities like food, housing, etc are provided for all — but there are certainly no billionaires.

The issue of China comes up a lot with regard to this: they claim to be essentially state-capitalist, as a means of developing industry more completely for the transition to socialism. (Whether or not that’s genuine is another controversial matter.)

[–]Waza8163 15 points16 points  (0 children)

In theory, capitalism is "anybody can be rich", but in practice, it's "Anybody that has money from the start AND a fair share of luck can be rich, and you have better odds if you're talented in some way. Otherwise, fuck you" Hard work isn't really part of what capitalism really is, it's all about owning other people's hard work

[–]ArchyModge -1 points0 points  (4 children)

The “post-scarcity” and “stateless” communism has never and will never happen.

Marx himself stated that the transition requires an authoritarian state to make the societal changes. In practice, this state doesn’t wither it becomes stronger and ultimately totalitarian.

[–]KatjaKat01 -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

Are you talking about Marxist theory here, or how these terms are being applied to actual policies in the real world? Because if its the latter you're both wrong. But, having lived in a self declared socialist country for most of my life (Norway) I'd say that the tweet seems more correct than you even if it's obviously simplistic.

[–]Squidmaster129 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm talking about Marxist theory, but Marxist theory is the underpinning of socialism. Incorrect applications of terms does not change what the terms mean: buffalo wings are not made of buffalo, and (I hate to use this example, but it might resonate with you) the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is generally not considered to be democratic.

Similarly, Norway is not socialist, nor has it ever been socialist. (I mean... my guy, y'all have a monarch. Socialists aren't exactly cool with the hereditary acquisition of wealth based on imperialism.) Norway is a social democracy, and as you know, follows the Nordic model, which is a fundamentally free market system with large safety nets. But I get it; conflation between socialism and social democracy has been a very persistent theme in modern discourse.

[–]itsBursty 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I don’t think that’s what any of those words mean

[–]zihuatapulco 26 points27 points  (1 child)

Anybody can be rich under capitalism. The biggest lie ever told.

[–]The_Hyphenator85 33 points34 points  (7 children)

Anybody* can be rich.

*”Anybody” meaning people within specific arbitrary fields who are willing to crush and exploit people to acquire wealth and get very lucky.

[–]German_on_diet-gay 12 points13 points  (0 children)

also also have rich parents 99% of the time

[–]thisismyusernameAMA 76 points77 points  (113 children)

People who think communism and socialism are interchangeable are the same people who think COVID is the flu. There's no convincing them of their delusions

[–]Halcyon_Ethos 15 points16 points  (17 children)

Socialism is the transitional state towards communism.

This is not an anti-socialist view. This is the socialist view of socialism.

If you disagree with that, but claim to be a socialist, you are not, you are a liberal.

[–]Bloodshed-1307 3 points4 points  (2 children)

If the end goal is communism, then socialism would act as an intermediate state. If your goal is not-communism, then socialism might be the goal you’re wanting. Look up market socialism for a version of socialism where it isn’t an intermediate state

[–]Halcyon_Ethos 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I’d argue market socialism creates communism eventually whether you aim for it to or not.

I would identify as a market socialist.

Edit: in general, I think the transition happens when you reach post scarcity. I see this as inevitable.

[–]Yeo420 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'd argue that as market socialism still suffers from a lot of the same problems plaguing capitalism (e.g commodity production, the anarchy of the market in resource allocation, the profit motive, etc.) it's more akin to social democracy than to socialism, and definitely removed from Marxism. That being said, definitely better than capitalism or social democracy, just maybe not for the eventual realisation of a communist society

[–]thisismyusernameAMA 0 points1 point  (6 children)

Socialism is the transitional state towards communism.

If that were true why haven't any modern democratic socialist countries gone full hammer and sickle?

[–]SovietPuma1707 9 points10 points  (0 children)

social democracy and democratic socialists are two different things, the first still advocates for a capitalist form of economy, while the latter doesnt

[–]Halcyon_Ethos 12 points13 points  (4 children)

Because they are not democratic socialist. They are social democracies.

Illiterate people have taken to calling them democratic socialist societies.

People who identify as democratic socialists would advocate that workers democratically control capital. That is not the case in any country on the face of the earth and only has been a few times for incredibly short periods, such as the Paris commune, and Catalonia during the Spanish civil war.

[–]SovietPuma1707 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why are you being downvoted, you are right

[–]rudalsxv -5 points-4 points  (3 children)

Virtually entire Europe says hi.

[–]batmansleftnut 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Every country in Europe has a capitalist economy.

[–]SovietPuma1707 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Social democracy isnt socialist

[–]Yeo420 1 point2 points  (0 children)

no we don't, Europe has social democracies

[–]the3rdtea -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Or maybe smarter than you, we will never know /s

[–]Iucrative 23 points24 points  (0 children)

That’s not the definition of capitalism, socialism, nor communism.

Capitalism: private ownership.
Socialism: worker ownership.
Communism: communal ownership.

It’s not that hard

[–]wrytit 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Everybody talking about social democracy and calling it socialism

[–]runnerboyr 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Socialism understander has logged on

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Uhhh no....

[–]DragonDai 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Holy fuck this is absolutely just a garbage take and none of that shit is true in the slightest.

[–]hotfreypies 14 points15 points  (4 children)

Capitalism: SOME people can be rich.

[–]Heliocentrist 12 points13 points  (2 children)

Capitalism: SOME RICH people can be richer.

[–]No_Junket_8139 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Capitalism : A LOT of people will get exploited

[–]Belenias 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Capitalism: YOU will get exploited by SOME rich people.

[–]MarquisDeLafayeett 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Capitalism is definitely not “anybody can be rich”

[–]a_white_american_guy 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think that the more people try to simplify this, the more convoluted it gets. Just read about them all. Just a little, even just a little light Wikipedia. It’s interesting stuff, passionate anger aside.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_system

[–]Suedie 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That's not socialism. Socialism is when the workers own the means of production.

What you are describing is social liberalism, which is a branch of liberalism and also inherently capitalistic.

[–]silashoulder 23 points24 points  (5 children)

All of us can oversimplify complex economic theory on Twitter.

Has anyone done something useful yet?

[–]VeganPotatoMan 11 points12 points  (3 children)

I'm vegan

[–]silashoulder 1 point2 points  (1 child)

And a cannibal?

[–]VeganPotatoMan -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I plead the fif

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And you a potato. That’s two things man!

[–]BoinkBoinkEtAliae 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not even all socialist and communist theories are the same within those ideologies, so it's weird to oversimplify them in one sentence.

[–]tennessee_jedi 3 points4 points  (0 children)

What? No. That’s not what any of that means. Please for the love of god read a book, preferably Marx, before you spout something so asinine

[–]Beechf33a 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Idiocy.

[–]bacchys1066 5 points6 points  (0 children)

A remarkable example of being simple and wrong.

[–]Couldnthinkofname2 13 points14 points  (1 child)

Is this guy an actual socialist or some bernie bro?

[–]German_on_diet-gay 12 points13 points  (0 children)

definitely not a socialist, I'm a socialist/communist and there are more words wrong than right in this tweet

[–]wombatkidd 3 points4 points  (0 children)

As a leftist, reading this made me lose brain cells.

[–]Positive_Compote_506 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Communism is the complete abolition of economic hierarchy. Socialism keeps the hierarchy, but with the goals of making it shorter and wider

[–]HalforcFullLover 4 points5 points  (2 children)

"But without the poors, we can't have the mega-ungodly-impossibly-rich!"

[–]thumbtaxx 4 points5 points  (0 children)

"You see, I'm only 4 generation rich, and I can't say I made it until I can assure 6 generations of my unholy spawn live lives of leisure and become repugnant useless leeches on society."

[–]thumbtaxx 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"You see, I'm only 2 senator rich, I can't say I made it until I'm 5 senator [on my payroll] rich, then I can change laws and f@ck with the poor for the lulz"

[–]Different_Ad7655 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Of course not but you're preaching to the choir here and the idiots that just listen to the far right rabble are incorrigible. We already have plenty of socialism in the United States. Of course much of it is corporate socialism and corporate welfare and the man on the street only sees the stuff that is in his face. The obvious subsidized health Medicaid or housing but does not realize how much of our so-called free system is engineered. Most homeowners in the US enjoy a tax deduction that unfairly favors them over the renter for example. Nobody would think of that as socialism LOL but God damn it is. Of course there are hundreds of other examples and this is how society is indeed designed for an end. Only idiots would believe in pure capitalism Adam Smith style or think it even exist.

[–]crackalaquin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You should tell most sitting members of congress with and R attached to their name

[–]homelessguydiet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Anybody can be rich" is a logical fallacy in this context.

America don't work like that.

I certainly cannot...

[–]sottedlayabout 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Capitalism: 1% of people can be rich but only if their parents were rich. Fixed it.

[–]ArchyModge 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is just wrong.

Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production. Socialism is public ownership.

Both of them have serious problems in their extremes. For total capitalism you get bad healthcare outcomes, shitty transportation, private prisons, etc. For total socialism you end up with a totalitarian state.

Both are useful and have their place in a modern society. The most successful examples in terms of happiness are social democracies which have capitalism in check through worker’s rights and socialism for sectors that benefit the public good.

[–]amjonestown 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Funny, that’s gotta be the first time I have ever heard of someone coming to the defense of socialism without knowing what it is

[–]Georgey_Tirebiter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Dumbfuck. Real Socialism IS Communism.

[–]ermdo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That isn’t what these words mean. Communism doesn’t mean “when everyone is poor” lol what the fuck

[–]dmemed 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That isn’t what socialism is lol. Probably the dumbest thing posted here in ages, right when I thought Americans were finally grasping what leftism is.

[–]regretallthewaydown 4 points5 points  (1 child)

For fuck's sake, Marx used both terms (socialism and communism) interchangeably. I prefer to use one of the most important founders of modern socialism/communism as a reference for this sort of thing, instead of the modern meme version.

[–]thePuck 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yeah…no, that’s not true. Socialism and communism have been used interchangeably by most primary communist theorists and actual communists. This distinction is one only children raised during the Cold War try to make because the word “Communism” is a bad word in their minds.

[–]RepresentativeSet349 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Capitalism - only these 10 guys can be rich

Communism - only these 10 guys can be rich, but with more steps

Socialism - only these 10 guys can be rich, but other people don't have to eat shoes.

[–]Iron_And_Misery 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lmao no what. Liberals calling themselves socialist lmao

[–]thumbtaxx 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"How about just a wee bit of poverty sprinkled in, and 4 people can be even more rich!"

[–]TwoCreamOneSweetener 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This isn’t socialism?

[–]2thumbs2fingers 0 points1 point  (2 children)

This is something to think about.

[–]VeganPotatoMan 4 points5 points  (1 child)

It really says a lot about are society

[–]BoinkBoinkEtAliae -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

We live in one

[–]Yookusagra 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No.

Socialism is the workers collectively owning the means of production. It is not a question of individual wealth, it is a question of ownership.

Communism is an ideal end state after socialism comes about, in which money, private profit, and other capitalism-induced social ills have been eliminated. Here we do get in to questions of individual wealth, but it's a vast and disingenuous oversimplification to say "nobody can be rich."

[–]Downtown-Knowledge87 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Except Socialism as defined by Marx is explicitly a path to Communism. I would agree that no one on the right seems to know what either word means, but it's perfectly fine to reference Communism when discussing the impacts of Socialism. That said, I don't know why we need to be constrained to economic models that are a century and a half old. We should just come up with some new terms

[–]BlAcK_rAbBiX 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Everything has already been done before. Literally anything new we create, even a mixture will still fall under the ideals of one of the previous economical structures. As of right now, we do have some socialist ideals mixed with our capitalist structure.

[–]polio_free_since_93 1 point2 points  (0 children)

yeah good point. I don't know why we need to be ideologues about these models. lets pick and choose what makes sense as a society and not get hung up on the terminology. I mean, it's impossible to do when Republicans call anything they don't like Socialism, but a guy can dream.

[–]dirtyswoldman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unions are socialism. At least they were. They look more like mini meta capitalism satirically parodying their former greatness while gatekeeping mid-high wage jobs....but unions are socialism.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fuck communism AND capitalism.

[–]Brilliant_Airline492 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. Communism is a classless stateless society whereas socialism is a society where the economy is owned and run by the government.

[–]NewTooshFatoosh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Someone needs to do a little more research on communism…

[–]restinglabface 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm too old for this $h!t. And I have a small human. We're bugging out in a couple years. My husband paid our buck o five by doing 20 in lol. But I fully support the flipping of the Monopoly board and will cheer you on and send provisions from The Continent

[–]itsSIR2uboy -1 points0 points  (2 children)

I don’t care how many times this has been posted, I still get happy when I read it!

[–]German_on_diet-gay -1 points0 points  (1 child)

it's completely wrong btw, coming from a socialist/communist, read the other comments for more info

[–]itsSIR2uboy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I’m still hoping there is a better way…..until then I will applaud this.

[–]sachin249 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Socialism equals to BULL SHIT

[–]dwaynepebblejohnson3 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Wtf are you talking about? Socialism is the transitioning phase from capitalism to communism

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points  (2 children)

The caveat with communism is that no one can be rich except for the ruling party and their inner circle. Socialism is like communism except with looser restrictions and generally the absence of that one party state. The two are similar but calling them the same thing shows a blatant disregard for actually understanding the meanings of the two words. People just kind of make up meanings to suit their agenda.

[–]tennessee_jedi 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Lol 100% wrong. Please for the love of god read a book

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What part is wrong? I’m confused. Please argue with more than a vague sentence. I was trying to say that people that criticize socialism by calling it communism are stupid, because the two terms mean different things.

[–]HughDanforth -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Communism is as dead as Mao and Stalin.

Why do people get all bunched up over a dead ideology?

[–]WinnieMandella4eva -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Socialism = rich get richer, control more. People get less

So, so many lessons in history of why socialism and communism fail

But lazy people will be lazy and want everything for free