this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2023
41 points (100.0% liked)

Lefty Memes

4278 readers
2008 users here now

An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the "ML" influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.

Serious posts, news, and discussion go in c/Socialism.

If you are new to socialism, you can ask questions and find resources over on c/Socialism101.

Please don't forget to help keep this community clean by reporting rule violations, updooting good contributions and downdooting those of low-quality!

Rules

0. Only post socialist memes

That refers to funny image macros and means that generally videos and screenshots are not allowed. Exceptions include explicitly humorous and short videos, as well as (social media) screenshots depicting a funny situation, joke, or joke picture relating to socialist movements, theory, societal issues, or political opponents. Examples would be the classic case of humorous Tumblr or Twitter posts/threads. (and no, agitprop text does not count as a meme)

1. Socialist Unity in the form of mutual respect and good faith interactions is enforced here

Try to keep an open mind, other schools of thought may offer points of view and analyses you haven't considered yet. Also: This is not a place for the Idealism vs. Materialism or rather Anarchism vs. Marxism debate(s), for that please visit c/AnarchismVsMarxism.

2. Anti-Imperialism means recognizing capitalist states like Russia and China as such,

as well as condemning (their) imperialism, even if it is of the "anti-USA" flavor.

3. No liberalism, (right-wing) revisionism or reactionaries.

That includes so called: Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Dengism, Market Socialism, Patriotic Socialism, National Bolshevism, Anarcho-Capitalism etc. . Anti-Socialist people and content have no place here, as well as the variety of "Marxist"-"Leninists" seen on lemmygrad and more specifically GenZedong (actual ML's are welcome as long as they agree to the rules and don't just copy paste/larp about stuff from a hundred years ago).

4. No Bigotry.

The only dangerous minority is the rich.

5. Don't demonize previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.

We must constructively learn from their mistakes, while acknowledging their achievements and recognizing when they have strayed away from socialist principles.

(if you are reading the rules to apply for modding this community, mention "Mantic Minotaur" when answering question 2)

6. Don't idolize/glorify previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.

Notable achievements in all spheres of society were made by various socialist/people's/democratic republics around the world. Mistakes, however, were made as well: bureaucratic castes of parasitic elites - as well as reactionary cults of personality - were established, many things were mismanaged and prejudice and bigotry sometimes replaced internationalism and progressiveness.

7. Absolutely no posts or comments meant to relativize(/apologize for), advocate, promote or defend:

(This is not a definitive list, the spirit of the other rules still counts! Eventual duplicates with other rules are for emphasis.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (30 children)

I mean you could even take the bottom number and leave them with the top number and they could still live in unimaginable luxury forever. Or just take the lot because fuck em lol.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (24 children)

I couldn't imagine spending $1 billion in my entire life, let alone 3-4.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Most of their billions is ownership in companies they grew into what they are today. It's not like they have billions to spend, it's that their ownership is worth billions according to the market.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They could go to any bank and leverage that asset for a loan for more than everyone who posts on this platform will make in their lifetimes no problem. That is a nonsense talking point

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What's your point? So because they can leverage their ownership of their own company we need to take away that ownership?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, if you can control more wealth than a mid size city earns in ten lifetimes, you should not be allowed to do that

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think the stock market should be determining if we take away companies from their owners, no matter how much it's worth. Why does having more wealth than a certain size city matter? Especially if your company has more employees and customers than even a large city?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Especially if your company has more employees and customers than even a large city?

Why do those employees get the bare minimum? Why are the working majority excluded from ownership and decision-making in the companies they run?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Employees are allowed to buy company stock and vote using it just like anyone else. Many companies even have employee stock purchase programs. What's the problem ?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Why don't the underpaid employees simply buy enough stock to sway company policy blob-no-thoughts

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
  1. those shares don't give you voting rights

  2. those shares amount to a tiny fraction of the total value of the company

  3. without the employees there would be no company

you try to square those three facts

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
  1. So all those times I've gotten mail about using my shares to vote, what was that about exactly?

  2. Of course they do, I don't expect a given employee who isn't the owner or high level exec to have a larger fraction of ownership.

  3. So what? What's your point?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
  1. Mostly it was about fooling you into thinking that, as a worker, you have even an iota of power within that company.

  2. You: "The owners deserve all the value that results from owning the company and not the workers because the owners own the company, duh." Reread what you said and note the ridiculous circular logic.

  3. The company would continue to function perfectly fine without the owner(s), yet would immediately cease to function or even exist without the workers. The only role the owner plays in the company (that the workers operate), is to siphon the value away from the workers who made it and unto themselves.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
  1. The workers get paid, they get value out of it, they aren't slaves.

  2. The company wouldn't exist without owners, someone created it, someone started it, someone owns it. The owners are also the ones usually making the big decisions, they have a lot of skin in the game when it comes to the future of the company.

Look at a company like Blockbuster. With a better owner they could have changed their position to stay around as a company, but the owner made bad choices. If there was no owner what would have happened? It probably would have failed even quicker because there is nobody making decisions and most employees probably didn't see the wiring on the wall until it was too late.

A good owner would have seen the direction the market was going and changed the company to prepare. Netflix has been fighting this fight for a while now, switching from streaming other's content to making their own content. Without an owner they would have died a long time ago.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The company wouldn't exist without owners, someone created it, someone started it, someone owns it. The owners are also the ones usually making the big decisions, they have a lot of skin in the game when it comes to the future of the company.

The kingdom wouldn't exist without monarchs, someone created it, someone started it, someone rules it. The monarchs are also the ones usually making the big decisions, they have a lot of skin in the game when it comes to the future of the kingdom.

Americans are so pro-democracy, but they'll bust out the most self-defeating, thoughtless, begging-the-question-ass logic to argue against having democracy in the workplace. Sad.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I hope you can realize this is a false equivalency, but maybe you can't?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I hope you can realize this is a false equivalency, but maybe you can't?

If you believe so little in democracy in the workplace, why do you bother with democracy at all? Should other institutions that govern our lives also function as oligarchies, dictatorships, autocracies?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

True, but that ownership gives them access to very low interest loans that they then use as spending money and don't have to pay taxes on it

https://www.businessinsider.com/american-billionaires-tax-avoidance-income-wealth-borrow-money-propublica-2021-6

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So what? We should take away that ownership because they can leverage it? Also the same people suggesting we tax wealth like this want to also close those "loopholes" of low interest loans on shares.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes to taking away wealth or the way to leverage it?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Taking away (extreme) wealth. There's no reason one person should have that much. There's countless better ways to use that money/wealth than for one persons extravagant lifestyle. And even if they don't have an extravagant lifestyle, what are they gonna do with it? Doubt they will build infrastructure out of good will with it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So take away ownership of a company just because it's too successful? That wealth is mostly in company ownership, so are you really suggesting we steal away legitimate ownership in successful companies?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Yes. Fuck Capitalism.

It's not stealing their legitimate ownership. They don't have legitimate ownership.

load more comments (21 replies)
load more comments (26 replies)