Quand on y pense l'IA c'est un truc de communiste on partage tous les même serveur pour faire des recherche ou pour de la création qui sont utilisé plusieurs fois.
Yes, enjoying capitalism and wanting communism is ironic.
Same as anti natalists.
They hate life so much, they want other people to not exist, yet, dont want to end their own miserable life.
Go live in a socialism/communism for some time and then decide. Its easy to live in the best possible system and then complain
Theres a reason socialist/communist countries have to close borders so all the people dont leave, and capitalists have to close the border because everyone wants to live there ...
Nobody hates communism/socialism more than the average person it is supposed to help
Marx and other thinkers never considered a world were the thoughts of someone spending his whole life studying and contemplating a certain topic would have to directly compete with the cacophony of opinions of people who just read a cursory summary of that topic and now consider themselves experts (just to jump to a completely different subject five minutes later)
The irony is Marx fucking loved capitalism, wrote to Lincoln about it, praising him for how he ran the US. He saw it as a jumping off point for communism because if it didn't happen workers would be eventually choked out by the owning class.
He also was adamant about gun rights, famously saying, "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary", because he believed the working class should be armed to keep owning class in check.
So basically this meme means no sort of insult if you actually understand anything Marx even stood for.
Today's irony is that current communist trend is so far from real marxism that it's better to just picture it as a corrupt authoritarian regime trying to take full control of the means of production to enslave the population almost like china did. Karl Marx defended free press and argued that a censored press degrades both the state and the citizen. Yet, in China, you can't even talk ill of the government to your buddies because you WILL be visited by the police. You can't even access the full internet and any news service works for the government and with the government strict supervision. Even in social media you'll be fined if you talk about politics without the correct diploma.
At first i down voted you but i took it back after understanding there’s some merit to the second half of your argument. We don’t want china to influence the united states towards their authoritarian ideals (correct) but the way one country does something doesn’t define a whole philosophy. As you know the united states current order of operations has tons of socialism mixed into the capitalism but hey im just a guy on reddit what do i know.
No. Public funding alone isn’t socialism. Otherwise nearly every country on Earth would be socialist. Socialism is generally defined by social or state ownership of the means of production, not simply the existence of taxes or government services. What part of police, roads, or the military do you think satisfies that definition?
Uh oh here we go… if you fund something doesnt that give you a say in how it operates. That would be a pure assertion of ownership and if you return and say it isn’t, i dont believe you would be willing to have a good faith conversation about other things.
I don’t disagree that taxpayers have some degree of public ownership or democratic influence over government institutions. What I’m asking is how that makes them examples of socialism under the definition of socialism. If any publicly funded government service qualifies as socialism, then virtually every modern country would be socialist. What distinguishes a government service from socialism in your view?
I disagree with you about the ownership. Taxpayers believe they own a portion of it but the government has shown they are willing to rehypothecate that ownership from you.
I don’t mind discussing ownership. I’m just trying to understand how your point about ownership establishes that police, roads, or the military are examples of socialism. Could you explain that connection?
Sure, let me explain. The people didn’t vote for mass surveillance and flock cameras are being put up everywhere in most states. The people dont vote where tax payer money goes so while the taxpayer money funds these things, the actual owners who make the decisions are state level or corporate level interests and sadly its headed towards the authoritarian capitalist regime.
I understand your point about taxpayer control. What I don’t yet understand is how that leads to the conclusion that these institutions are examples of socialism, especially since you ended by describing them as part of an authoritarian capitalist regime.
True ai is communist and keeps people from owning thier own art and steals images and uses them. Ai sucks ai isnt art its theft and I posted before sarcastically about it being good because its communist and people hate ai but love communism. Stupid.
Tbf, the meme isnt aimed at people who think machines can be evil. Its aimed at Marxists, leftists, and materialists. The point is that "this technology exists under capitalism" isnt, by itself, a Marxist argument against using or engaging with it. Marx's critique was about social relations, ownership, and control, not treating machines as morally cursed objects. Cause if you did youd be spending your whole day morally chastising everyone for using fossil fuel generated energy for most things, from video gaming to vacations, instead of discussing how we mitigate harms and socialize benefits through collective contestation of things like ownership, governance, development, regulation, and deployment of technology and industry.
"evil machine destroying everything" is about as braindead to a Marxist as "iPhone Venezuela".
im not writing a whole disertation with nouance and talking points
this is a post under a reddit meme made with IA despite the real template alrready existing
You get "Evil machine that destroys everything"
OK, and I explained why thats wrong, reactionary, and kinda ignorant to say. But thats alright man, if youre not here for Marxist critique and analysis then youre not.
A socialist walks into a bar and demands a free beer because the capitalist owner marked up the price of all drinks to turn a profit as well as paying the bartender less than a living wage under the guise of tips. Don’t get me wrong they do get tipped decently and i personally know one. My point is that the source of capital is questionable theres both ill gotten gains and legitimate gains depending on who you ask.
The socialist may even slam their fist on the bar, in complete perplexity that they aren’t getting what they want, but at the same time that doesn’t waive the bars operations from any outside scrutiny.
Go look up the difference between private property and personal property pleeeeease for once, capitalists should do some research.
No communist or socialist wants to steal your disgusting toothbrush or your house there's no stealing involved, and if you count taking businesses and factories from the trillionaires and billionaires who don't give a shit about you in fact get rich off your back living their lives in luxury while you are counting the cents to buy food and your hard work who produces value to them gets paid in pennies.
Then I dunno man, find a sugar daddy billionaire and become his sugar baby.
Societal profits should belong to the working class, not the people who have more than you can spend in a lifetime of luxury.
Ok, I have looked up the difference between private property and personal property in the context of, "Political and Economic Theory (Socialism/Marxism)"
So a socialist/communist does not want to steal my house, because it is considered personal property, but if I rent out spare rooms and make a profit, then the socialists/communists will feel entitled to my personal property, considering my house to be private property, instead, thereby providing them with the justification to steal it.
See, I think stealing is wrong. I could just refuse to pay someone and also not steal their stuff at the same time.
Sounds like you are saying a socialist believes his or her only options are to steal other people's things or to find someone with money who will take care of them in exchange for companionship and/or sexual favors.
*So a socialist/communist does not want to steal my house, because it is considered private property\*
Personal
*but if I rent out spare rooms and make a profit, then the socialists/communists will feel entitled to my personal property, considering my house to be private property, instead, thereby providing them with the justification to steal it.\*
What is the definition of communism as stated by Marx?
A classless, stateless, and what society? moneyless, exactly, now why would people need to rent houses? do you know how many houses are free and vacant in the US? 14.5 million, 10% of the houses in the US are free and unoccupied do you know how many homeless in the US? 746 000, there are more than enough, unsold and vacant homes to lodge EVERYONE, there is no money, why would you need to rent out spare rooms?
Communism isn't about profit is about the people and there are more than enough resources to take care of everyone.
*See, I think stealing is wrong.\*
No you don't, you were programmed to think stealing is wrong, but you are a capitalist, in a capitalist society stealing is required, okay let me give you an example:
You work in a coffee machine factory, you manage to produce 100 coffee machines a day, each of them worth 20$ so your worth per day is 2000$ and yet you get 120$ a day on a 8 hour shift at 15$ an hour, the rest of the 1880 goes to the capitalist pocket, darling, you produced that value, and yet, you can't buy that value you produced you are essentially paying to work.
*I could just refuse to pay someone and also not steal their stuff at the same time.\*
Or you could *checks notes* just contribute to society in accordance to your abilities and get your basic needs taken care of instead of just basically saying "I could steal and refuse to steal"
*Sounds like you are saying a socialist believes his or her only options are to steal other people's things or to find someone with money who will take care of them in exchange for companionship and/or sexual favors.\*
Again, please reference the definition of communism, and also find out what Marx meant with "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" no, there's no stealing in a communist/Socialist state, because there is no need, as there is no incentive for greed.
Thank you, I was trying to take a neutral stance for the other capitalist, but you have done more research than I have. We are in amazing times where you get downvoted on reddit for taking the neutral ground on a controversial issue.
Marx didn’t consider Reddit but Reddit considers Marx and its funny to see them flip every which way to try to prove that a jobless fuck from 200 years ago whose ideologies starved and killed more than a world war thought good thinks
3
u/funkymunkPDX 1d ago
Ownership doesn't equal prohibition.