cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/32127354

top 52 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 15 points 1 year ago (1 child)

Sorry, what is even happening in the last panel? Why does this art look so weird when you look at the people closely? Was this picture AI generated?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    capitalism: nuking the tree to mine for lithium

  • source
  • [+] 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I have seen this drawing many years ago, I don't think this is AI generated.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (24 children)

    Communism will never, has never and can never work on a large scale.

  • source
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Marxism is anti-utopian, it's based on analyzing how societies evolve over time. What is deemed "authoritarianism" is the need for the proletariat to exert its control over the bourgeoisie, rather than the reverse, yet bourgeois rule is more authoritarian.

    @naeap@sopuli.xyz

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    That's fine in theory, until the party starts calling everything it sees as a potential opposition or threat to itself and any attempts to adapt to the times "burgeois".

    Until you guys create a clear set of rules to permit gradual evolution, dissenting voices, protecting the rights of the individual and political opposition, while preventing things like cult of personality, nobody is getting on that ride again.

    (oh wait, there is another ride like that but for the nation instead of the proletariat, it's called fascism...and everybody is getting on it...again)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    Neither can capitalism. But communism is incompatible with war.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (17 children)
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    Are you counting defensive wars against capitalist colonizers, fascist invasions, and uprisings against oppressive puppet regimes and tyrants?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    Always the victim. Get back to your struggle sessions, and hope the target isn't you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Are you counting defensive wars against capitalist colonizers, fascist invasions, and uprisings against oppressive puppet regimes and tyrants?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    I'm sure you're definition is probably broad enough that that my concept might include some of the wars you'd discount. ..but not all.

    in any case, even if I narrowed it down significantly, there'd be enough to disprove "communism is incompatible with war".

    Rather, you could say "in theory, communism is incompatible with war, even though it isn't a magical fix for the underlying tendencies and in some cases needs that drive war."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (9 children)

    Wars happen for a number of reasons, and there should be a distinction between offensive and defensive wars.

    In theory, capitalism is incompatible with war as it is assumed to be a system of fair exchange. Many economists and philosophers followed Ayn Rand in promoting this idea. Obviously it is NOT such a system, and is instead a relentless amoral pursuit of profit and value extraction, and will cheerfully use war to obtain resources while simultaneously extracting value via defense industry stocks. It also uses war to crush any opposed ideologies, which is censorship in its most violent form.

    I am not familiar with how communism or socialism is compatible with war outside of Rand's claim that socialism consumes resources leading to demand for more which must be taken from neighbors rather than using a system of free and fair exchange.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    there should be a distinction between offensive and defensive wars.

    ...that difference is entirely which side of the battle line you're on...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    yeah, that's why I sidestepped that one. It's an easy pathway into "no, you!"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Who was the aggressor: Germany or Poland? Israel or Iran? Iraq or the US?

    Are you saying that there is no such thing as a right or wrong, good or bad side to a violent conflict?

    If so, prove it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    No, are you just scrapping for a fight?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    No, I'm saying that it's only "no you!" for bad faith actors. I'd like to think that isnt who we're dealing with in this site.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    ah. In that case, we can all acknowledge that communism and capitalism have both lead to significant wars and violent non-war actions on the populace.

    The Korean war, The invasion of Hungary, the invasion of Czechoslovakia, sino/soviet border conflict, Chinese invasion of Vietnam..

    ..but let's not pretend that war is the end-all be-all of government criminality. We can look at democide, or just atrocious neglect that had occurred quite a few times in communism, add well as abuse of the populace.

    ..now, I'm not claiming capitalism is good. But Communism isn't some panacea that prevents tensions and violence.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    Indeed, there should be a distinction. But Communism isn't exactly angelic in its tendencies, any more than capitalism is.

    Ayn Rand was a bitter individual who turned her bitterness into a philosophy, helping many people all across the world turn their own pain into bitterness. I'm not a fan.

    Neither capitalism nor communism are strangers to violent censorship, particularly where it concerns opposition to ideology.

    There are things that capitalism does better, and there are things that communism does better. Clearly, the ideals and genuine attempt by some in communism to establish sound philosophical merit is there, and that's a good first step. However, the infeasibility of implementation of an effective communism that can also compete with capitalism just isn't there. Concessions are made, and capitalism (or authoritarianism) becomes more and more present, but in ways that aren't acknowledged.

    The reality is that capitalism is powerful, and that there is no way of ensuring ideal human behavior. Government and economic systems fail here, and tend to reflect the vices the people in general hold in esteem (whether they would acknowledge that or not).

    The proper grounds for change isn't government or economic system, but in the moral ideology of the people. It has to do with the values the people hold in esteem, and are willing to back with action. Any system of governance or economy will begin to reflect those underlying values, whether the starting point be communistic, capitalistic, monarchic, oligarchic, or any variant of governance or economic system.

    Communism promises to be the next leap forward. It's only natural to reach for it. But it does not provide what it promises. A dream is not enough. An evolutionary platform must incorporate what exists, not deny it.

    That doesn't mean we can't find in communism (and other systems of life) what attracts us, and learn to build systems of love and power in our own lives that reflect those things we love so dearly. Once you've given up on the dream - truly, and without bitterness or apathy - it's only natural to do so.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Everyone can be a tyrant or a puppet if you think different enough

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I like how everyone's response so far is "words have no meaning"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Because its true, have you ever seen a war where the sides dont blame each other at the end? Any reasoning given is just hot air as long as the actions dont line up. Udssr said they had to fight the capitalists but proceeded to build the biggest bomb ever created, which is clearly a tool for mass muder and not targeted warfare (tsar bomb - 50mt)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    what a kludge justice is.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    ai slop with ai generated citation text...

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Where is the justice for everyone that Stalin killed by sending them to gulags? To Siberia? Where is the justice for those killed by Khmer Rouge?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    The US is capitalist and has greater gulags than Russia ever could and regularly kills and enslaves millions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Whataboutism doesn't answer the question.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    The central committee decreed that the orchard was to be collectivized, and many ladders built and distributed. But when the trees belong to everyone they belong to nobody, and that is who is motivated to care for them. So there would be no apples that year, only tears.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Because community gardens always get destroyed ...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    A hobby operated by volunteers isn't load-bearing. Forced collectivization invariably leads to disaster.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    No, it doesn’t … You have a central authority that makes sure that doesn’t happen or the community makes sure that doesn’t happen like how hippies grow their own food

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    The Soviet Union and Maoist China both had central authorities and millions of people starved to death because of collectivization. Do you think they just weren't trying hard enough?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    This is such a bad faith and ignorant argument.

    There were literally famines before Stalin and Mao. And both places were being invaded by other countries, and had their own farmers sabotage the crops to make people raise up against the government. Also, once that was taken care of, nobody ever died of a famine even under Stalin or Mao and let alone after them.

    Lets talk about how Britain purposefully created a famine that killed millions of Irish and Indians, shall we? And how European powers take away food security from Africa, and millions starve to death every year under capitalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The Holodomor happened years before the second world war started, The Great Leap Forward was over a decade after it had ended. Both of these were man-made famines inflicted during peacetime by communist governments upon their own people. Millions of people do not starve every year under capitalism, that's just ridiculous.

    Why would we talk about how empires treat their conquered subjects? That has nothing to do with capitalism and communism, you're just trying to change the subject. I'm defending empires, war and conquest are terrible no matter who's doing it.

    Ignorance and bad faith? Every accusation is a confession.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Still ignorant and bad faith arguments that lacks any historical nuance

    The Holodomor happened years before the second world war started

    The USSR was being under constant invasions by the world powers that didn’t want to allow a socialist state to exist. Add to that, that the kulaks sabotaged their own crops to make people revolt and overthrow the socialist government.

    The Great Leap Forward was over a decade after it had ended.

    China was a poor agrarian country which infrastructure was destroyed by Japan. It constantly had famines that killed people even before that. Mao just couldn’t fix the issues that caused famine fast enough for another one not to repeat.

    Literally millions of people starve in Africa due to not having enough money to eat, and due to the privatization of food and fields. That is capitalism. It is insane that you would say otherwise. And even in America lots of people are food insecure. And a capitalist nation Israel has killed like 100k people and a capitalist nation Germany killed 50 Million people.

    Colonization is part of capitalism. Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism and so is fascism

    Begone capitalist bootlicker

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • When was the Soviet Union invaded? Other than the Nazi betrayal of the plan to divide Europe between them and the Soviets, which happened years after the end of the Holodomor, the USSR was the one on the offensive during this period, for example in Afghanistan, China, Finland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia.

    Gosh, I wonder why someone whose only crime was being a bit more successful than the average peasant might have been angry about seeing their friends and family murdered, having their livelihood taken away, or watching some aparatchik experiment on their society with some economic system he's only ever read about. Yes, that one's a real mystery to me.

    China was indeed quite backwards and devastated by the Japanese invasion and the civil war, but somehow severe famine didn't occur until after the communist victory and a decade of reconstruction. It was caused by Mao's Great Leap Forward, imposed from above by people who had clearly read extensively about political philosophy and never agriculture.

    Subsistence farming in sub-saharan Africa has very little to do with capitalism. Where are the capitalists? There is essentially no capital! Feudal warlordism is a bad system, but trying to use it to criticize something completely different is nonsense. The food situation in America could hardly be more different, even during severe recessions essentially nobody starves, and in fact one of the biggest public health challenges they're facing is that even relatively poor people have access to so much cheap, appetizing, calorie-dense food that without taking steps to avoid it they become severely obese.

    Countries fight wars of conquest independent of their economic system, essentially any country strong enough to impose their will on others will almost certainly do so sooner or later, as we've seen throughout all of human history under a variety of economic and political systems. Trying to somehow tie the crimes of Israel and and Nazi Germany to their economic system while ignoring all other factors shows how weak your argument is - you are unable to criticize capitalism directly so you instead take a stab at guilt by association. Perhaps the problem is having too much power concentrated in the hands of leaders? Nope, it's definitely because businesses are privately owned. Surely Palestinian Nationalists and Zionists would get along if only there were bread lines.

    Ignorance is when your opponent reads history, bad faith is when he refuses to accept your twisted interpretation of it. Thank you for enlightening me. You would have to be willfully blind to still believe Marxism offers real solutions and that actual existing communism is preferable to capitalist democracy, even with its many shortcomings, after having witnessed the events of the 20th century.

  • source
  • parent
  • 38 comments in c/comics@lemmy.ml view that post
    [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Why is there a question mark on 'equality'?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I am assuming that it is because people see "equality" as the epitome of human fairness, so it is questioning that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Sounds like it's saying "or maybe this isn't real equality?", which is very counter to what I assume is its intended message, an attempt to convince the reader that equality isn't the epitome of human fairness.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Well, equality is sometimes referred to in the vain of "everyone is equal" rather than "everyone is treated equal". I think that might be what it's saying. When the social idea of equality first emerged, I cannot imagine even for a second that they were like "yeah, everyone should be given exactly the same things regardless of their personal situation", because nobody striving for an idea LIKE equality would come to that resolution. Like, equity is just what equality should have been in the first place.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

    I appreciate the effort, but it is unrealistic to expect an old tree to straighten.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    Inclusion at the end is fucking stupid. A baseball game where random people are playing is not the same thing as a pro game people are watching. Someone who has one arm trying to hit a major league pitch is going to be completely destroyed and it won't be fun for anyone. This naive and stupid understanding of inclusion is what makes random morons think they're experts on vaccines despit what the elite scientists think because they watched a video on YouTube. Not everyone can do everything, and they shouldn't be expected to. People have different skills and strengths and the rest of the meme acknowledges that and then at the end it just becomes completely stupid. You can even tell that some moron, probably an HR drone, tacked this on at the end and probably felt smug about going above and beyond the original comic without actually understanding what it was saying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I think you're taking this too literally. It's a good representation of the words and their meanings. Obviously it does not accurately portray a baseball game. It's not trying to. It's an analogy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Blue shirt keeps doing sus hand gesture in every panel idk if we should let him have any apples

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Why does the right-wing kid not just come over to the left-wing?

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Conservatives want to bring us back to the first one, because "it's naive childishness to even pretend people could be equal".

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -26 points 1 year ago (19 children)

    Communism will never exist ,it's utopia ,it becoming authoritarianism very quickly.We need other real alternatives to what we have now

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago

    Marxism is anti-utopian, it's based on analyzing how societies evolve over time. What is deemed "authoritarianism" is the need for the proletariat to exert its control over the bourgeoisie, rather than the reverse, yet bourgeois rule is more authoritarian.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I recommend you don't get your information about communism solely from devout anti-communists

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    I lived in post sovier counties with USSR time ages,so I know pretty well what it was actually.It's awful and never should happen again,but I didn't say that I like capitalism too they both authoritarianism in extreme limits

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago (11 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    This isn't quite correct. Governance and economy are too interlinked to be considered distinct, systems aren't recipes picked out on a page but a material, physical thing. Further, "authoritarianism" isn't really a thing in and of itself, it just describes the phenomenon where one class oppresses others. In Socialism, the proletariat oppresses the bourgeousie, in Capitalism the bourgeoisie oppresses the proletariat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (9 children)

    How is the proletariat oppressing a non existent class? Under socialism, wouldn't everyone be considered proletariat?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

    Good questions!

    1. Socialism is the transition from capitalism to communism. Public ownership becomes the principle aspect of the economy, not private. However, classes remain, the commodity form remains in earlier phases of socialism, and so does the state.

    2. In communism, after all classes are abolished, there won't be a proletariat either. Proletarians are people that sell their labor-power as their sole commodity, in communism wage-labor as the capitalist conception no longer exists. Without a bourgeoisie, there can be no proletariat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    I guess I understand that, but separately I take issue with the use of the word oppression? The bourgeoisie cannot be oppressed, really. If they were ever in a position to be oppressed, they would no longer be considered bourgeoisie. No? But yeah the rest of what you're saying makes sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (6 children)

    Oppression by the state is what I mean. The bourgeoisie are specifically that class that earns its income through the M-C-M' circuit of capitalist production. This class will still exist in socialism, it existed in limited factors in the Soviet Union, exists in the modern PRC, Cuba, etc. However, the existence of private property does not mean the bourgeoisie has control of the state. What matters is which class controls the principle aspects of the economy, the large firms and key industries. In the PRC, for example, those are overwhelmingly publicly owned and planned, even if there exists a bourgeoisie, and as a consequence the bourgeoisie is subordinate to the state and not above it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    But, and maybe this is a semantics argument then, I don't think we are in agreement by what oppression means. I'm just using the google definition. Are you using a different definition that makes more sense in the context of theory/academic circles? I am a layman, after all

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    I'm using it in the same way you likely are, I just think we have a different conception of how the state behaves. Essentially, depending on which aspect of the economy is principle, as well as who is in charge of the state, will determine which class is going to be represented by the state in disputes among classes.

    In an economy dominated by private property and a bourgeois state, there is no real democracy for the proletariat. The state is fully under the control of the bourgeoisie.

    In an economy dominated by public property and a proletarian state, the proletariat is in charge of where the economy is headed. The proletariat can sieze bourgeois property if it so chooses, the state can support labor unions, etc.

    This is because whoever controls the large firms and key industries controls the economy in total, as all depending factors rely on them. As small and medium firms grow, the proletariat can fold them into the public sector, as market mechanics cease to be as effective and central planning becomes far more efficient.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Okay, so what I'm saying is that the definition I'm reading cites "injustice" and "cruelty" as prerequisites.

    "prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control" (oxford)

    "the state of being subject to unjust treatment or control" (oxford)

    "mental pressure or distress" (oxford- but this is the third definition and seems like a much more general word that isn't really useful in these conversations when trying to define systems)

    "unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power" (merriam-webster)

    Merriam-webster then also has 2 more definitions similar to the oxford counterparts.

    "a situation in which people are governed in an unfair and cruel way and prevented from having opportunities and freedom" (Cambridge)

    I stopped looking after that, but I think that's fair, no? So then if we DO agree about these definitions, do you really consider it cruel or unjust towards the hoarders of capital?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    I don't think it's "cruel" or "unjust," all it means is that freedom for the bourgeousie will be curtailed, speech will be restricted, and influence will be limited, rather than the proletariat which is oppressed by capitalist states. It's a flipping of the dictatorship of the bourgeousie to the dictatorship of the proletariat, ie the proletariat will have the political power, and the bourgeoisie will have little to none.

    I'm a communist, for clarity, I don't say this as a knock on socialism and communism. I think you're putting more of a moral spin on it than a materialist spin.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Okay, I want to dicuss this more later. It's interesting to me to think about something as taboo as limiting free speech, but I get what you mean. The power the bourgeoisie have to control the news and media and therefore public opinion is crazy. My first thought was limiting their twitter usage, which I do think would be wrong. But limiting their ability to manipulate twitter with money or other, similar tactics would fall under the same umbrella. (Hopefully Ninja edit: but should be prevented, I mean! They shouldn't be allowed to use their wealth to influence. But I don't think their literal speech should be restricted! Unless they break the rules or something and get banned or something ykwim)

    I know, I see the .ml 🀣

    I think the morals of it are important for the sake of optics in the least. If oppression implies a cruelty and injustice (at the very least in some minds, mine included, and probably most people given the dictionaries I read/bing search results) which is not associated with the movement, it might be better to not use those words. Fair?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    As far as optics are concerned, it's important to be honest. As Marx himself stated, when our times come we will not make excuses for the terror. That means not trying to "prettify" the task of revolution, revolution isn't a tea party. The tools the bourgeoisie uses to manipulate and control society in capitalism will be stripped from them and placed in the hands of the proletariat, and bourgeois property will be gradually taken from them. By rights, this is just, but it is also "authoritarian," or "oppressive." Nevertheless, this task must be done, and taken seriously, lest we fall to counter-revolution. At the same time, this will create genuine democracy for the proletariat.

    We can continue as much as you want!

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    This echoes my concerns every time someone (especially under the age of about 40, especially American) praises "communism" (as if it were one thing) with some kind of absolute adoration.

    In this case, OP: how did that justice work for the political dissidents sent to gulags?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    The vast majority of people sent to prison by the soviets were criminals, thieves, murderers, rapists, etc. The political prisoners were largely members of the White Army, fascists, monarchists, or were active terrorists against society. For a country that went through a revolution, resistance from the older owning classes is expected, other revolutions were similar in use of force against the monarchy and other ruling classes.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)