this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2025

355 points (94.3% liked)

Political Memes

7817 readers

2561 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civil

Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformation

Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memes

Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotion

Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.

Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

355

We’ll get capitalism right, just give us 1 more spin of the roulette (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

55 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(page 2) 35 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 week ago

We're now trying pump and dump capitalism

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

Let's go gambling!

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago (4 children)

But 2 large economies tried to impliment communism... while engaged in a cold war against much more entrenched ideologies, while having corrupt leaders and they didn't do it well.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

Ones doing quite well, hence why countries are abandoning the US as a trade partner and going for it instead. Dengism is the solution to the failed ideal that you can take an agrarian preindustrial society straight to communism. And given all essential sectors are worker owned, it seems to be working.

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

But 2 large economies tried to impliment communism… while engaged in a cold war against much more entrenched ideologies, while having corrupt leaders and they didn’t do it well.

And while - which I, personally, think is the biggest reason - starting from pre-capitalist economies, thus materially having to do what capitalism did (rapid industrialisation, disenfranchisement of peasantry, accumulation of capital), and ultimately following what Marxism would have guessed: Their ideology forming around their material reality of having to accumulate capital from labour while trading on the world market. So it basically became its own kind of welfare state/social democratic capitalism, with a bit of "but communism will arrive eventually, we promise!"

Once that material dynamic is entrenched, no amount of ideological purity can simply correct it from the top, you can't change material society by implementing an ideal onto a reality. It has to develop materially and dialectically, through the process of the old system failing (in unbearable ways), necessitating revolutionary changes.

[+] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

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

I do think you could be right, but I also think it is a proper dilemma, that it is impossible to really know. An immature attempt at revolution can be impossible to tell apart from a proper revolutionary moment, and a genuinely well-advised conservative "let's not hastily break something" can be impossible to tell apart from useful idiots for reactionary movements, while living in the historical moment those things are happening. I think, to some degree at least, we just have to accept that uncertainty, and that the course of history is not simply determinable in the chaos of the lived reality.

Doesn't mean, that there is nothing at all to be analysed, no visions to be had, just that ultimately, every single historical movement will have to live with the reality of "crossing the Rubicon"-moments, where no amount of knowledge, no amount of theory, no amount of smug analysis can really tell the outcome.

I, personally, think advancements beyond social democracy should be possible already - I think the basic ideas laid out in the Gotha Critique (overcoming of monetary system through non-exchangeable production/distribution with a voucher-like system), in combination with advancements in Cybernetics already made within the 20th century (as well as computers to better implement the Cybernetics on top of that), could provide for a system, in which necessary labour can be jointly coordinated, with the aim of reducing work days and increasing value in everyday lives, along with a richer use of free time (think: education, makerspaces, creative hobbies like art and programming) beyond socially necessary labour.

But can I be certain? No. Do I think it is worth fighting for? Definitely.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

There's also been quite a few smaller socialist and anarchist societies that have existed under similar external influences. Almost like capitalism is tied up with ideological warmongering or something.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago (3 children)

What’s that Churchill said about being the worst thing except for everything else that’s been tried?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (6 children)

Churchill was a genocidal war criminal on par with Hitler, he's not someone one should ever quote: unless you're just okay with Indians not being people.

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

Churchill said that about democracy, interesting you interchange the two.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

Something that's incorrect

[–] [email protected] 63 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Welfare capitalism was better than the other ones.

[+] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (5 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

Listen man I know I'm edging pretty close to "no true Scotsman," but hear me out... it's not that it wasn't "true socialism," but whether something is socialist economically isn't necessarily tied to authoritarianism. Like, fuck tankies, but also I do think that combining market economics and truly representative democracy with proportional representation and freedom of speech and association with socialist ownership structures (as in the abolition of corporate governance from any input from, frankly, absentee "owners") is the move. Socialism doesn't have to be authoritarian, nor does it have to be against market economics. Ya know?

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Because it's half way to socialism?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's the most left of the right-wing scope that is pro-capitalism, but doesn't address the underlying contradiction and will inevitably backslide to the right. It'll take longer, but will eventually side with fascism as capitalism historically does

[+] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm referring more to as a Mode of Production, where the Socialist Mode is the democratic organization of the workers who together control all aspects of the business such as wages and investment. Richard Wolff explains it well. Socialism doesn't mean exclusively using central planning or centralization of power.

The contradictions I'm talking about are between the workers and the capitalist owners. That exists whether the capitalism is state or private, and whether the capitalism is laissez-faire or social democracy.

That contradiction will always lead to the capitalists accumulating wealth and using that wealth to improve the mechanisms of which they are able to accumulate wealth. High taxation, while an improvement over laissez-faire, does not change that reality. Wealth will still be accumulated by capitalists, who will then use that wealth to change the laws for their benefit. Democracy will backslide as corporate influence grows year over year. We see this backsliding all over Europe to various degrees, despite them having significantly more social safety nets than America. There is no type of capitalism that won't lead to Fascism.

China is a mix of capitalism and socialism. Richard Wolff also explains this well. It doesn't matter if they claim to be communist or not, or if they claim to be on that path or not, the current system is a mix

[+] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

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

No, I'm talking about Modes of Production. I linked videos explaining it more in depth for a reason.

A workers cooperative is using a socialist mode of production to organize and run a private business.

You didn't provide what the contradictions of the socialist mode of production are. You gave critiques of planned economy and authoritarianism.

The contradiction of a capitalist mode of production is between the owner, who wants to maximize exploitation, and the workers, who want to minimize their exploitation. A socialist mode of production makes a democratic organization of all the workers replace that capitalist owner. The workers are in full control. There is no contradiction between the owner and workers because the workers are now also the owners.

I recommend reading the deluzian criticism of dialectics.

This is about philosophy, not a critique of marxian economics or dielectical materialism

If we can't agree on the definitions of Capitalism and Socialism, then we can't really have a conversation. I provided the videos by Richard Wolff so that the definitions being used are clear.

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

What about bioregionalism? A system that is designed primarily around fitting in to nature, instead of trying to manipulate it?

[+] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

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

I don't see psychology, sociology etc. as something separate to nature. They are part it of it, because they are aspects of us humans, and we are part of nature.

None of these things are true, yet we build systems assuming they are.

Agreed. Or perhaps I'd say some of us build systems using those unrealistic abstractions as excuses for oppression and extractivism.

I don't think fact that those approaches have been dominant for centuries (millenia in a few locations) means that they are the only approach. It seems that, given we have the ability to reflect on those and realise how unrealistic they are, now would be a good time to try building systems that are NOT based on unrealistic assumptions.

And yes, I realise we'll never have a perfect understanding of our place in the world, and there will always be flawed assumptions of varying degrees of importance underlying our world view. But we can absolutely do better, and a perfect place to start would be to avoid the assumptions that we've just spent a long time testing and found to be untrue.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments