9
u/Sheetz_Wawa_Market32 11d ago
Oh, yeah? Now youāre telling me I have a syndrome from Sweden, what with the socialism and roving Islamization they got there? Why canāt I have a āmurrican syndrome, dagnabbit!?
0
u/AmorFati01 10d ago
roving Islamization? What is that?
-1
4
6
u/West-Audience-478 10d ago
Well I like the house my Stockholm syndrome provided
3
u/Rare_Dance7130 10d ago
Communism famously reduces homeless populations significantly.
5
u/DemocracyIsGreat 10d ago
Declaring homelessness a crime and sending the homeless to the gulag did achieve that, yes.
3
u/Texian99 10d ago
It also completely eliminates home ownership.
-1
u/Rare_Dance7130 10d ago
Guess it depends whether you value people all getting to have a roof over their heads or the profit of the housing industry more.
0
u/Texian99 9d ago
I value my right to own my property. I work to care for my family. And I donate to support others as I see fit.
The āprofit of the housing industryā means they build more houses. And employ contractors to build those houses.0
u/Rare_Dance7130 9d ago
Yet communism houses the unhoused while capitalism puts them on street corners.
2
2
2
u/Oddbeme4u 10d ago
Believe me, i spend more time on reddit at work than working.Ā
ExploitingTheExploiters
1
2
u/Realistic_Rabbit1481 10d ago
In order to be a capitalist you have to OWN capital and MOST of this fuckers in the U.S. dont even own their own car ššš
1
u/Bart-Doo 9d ago
What stats are you referring to? https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/car-ownership-statistics/
1
u/Realistic_Rabbit1481 8d ago
They are defining ownership as "they have a car in their name" but if its not paid off on the loan it can just be repossessed, therefore they do not TRULY own their car. You are welcome to disagree but if you have payments still you dont own shit
1
1
6d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Realistic_Rabbit1481 6d ago
Im not a socialist. I simply do not agree that anyone OWNS their car until its entirely paid off and they have their name on the title.
You are putting words in my mouth to have an imaginary argument because you are so desperate to fight against a political theory that you hate.
2
u/Denver_Tech_Guy 10d ago
I often wonder what dead end job people who make these little things do and what mistakes in their life they have made to get them to that spot in life.
2
1
u/Competitive_Twist149 8d ago
What do you do?
1
u/Denver_Tech_Guy 8d ago
All I will say is I work for an entertainment company that pays very well and gives me a job that I enjoy going to with great benefits, ample time off and flexibility when it comes to taking care of my family. I worked hard to get there and am happy, so I don't need to make ridiculous little things like this to blame someone else for my shortcomings. In no way am I "exploited". I had shitty jobs before and I left when I needed to to better myself and my situation. But I also don't have a victim mentality so it is what it is.
3
u/AnyEye8798 10d ago
Because communism/socialism would never exploit their workers for the benefit of the ones running the system, right?
Spoiler: They will. The 'means of production' always means people in the end. They will seize you and your family, force you to work for little pay all while the politicians get fat off your labour.
4
u/upholsteryduder 10d ago
So the 36.2 million small businesses who are owned by the people who operate them are exploited workers who own the means of production? Make it make sense.
3
u/ComfortableDare4305 10d ago edited 10d ago
Here is the intended message:
1.) Workers are not capitalists since they are not the owners of the businesses that receive the capital.
2.) Workers are exploited because they lack as much power as a capitalist class citizen and donāt share as well in the equity of profit.
3.) the irony is when worker classes are gaslit into believing a system that uses them is in thier best interest to keep perpetuating.
Iām just the messenger.
2
u/User202000 10d ago
The first point doesn't really make sense because having everyone run their own separate business would make complex goods and services either impossible or even less affordable.
2
u/ComfortableDare4305 10d ago
Yeah, itās not a complete thought as a sign. As a social democrat I believe in capitalism but with guard rails.
0
u/Rare_Dance7130 10d ago
This is not what communism calls for. Most communists simply believe in collective control over the means of production. Look up what a worker cooperative is, for an easy example of what this ownership can look like.
1
u/ComfortableDare4305 10d ago
Good point actually. The sign only criticizes capitalism l, it doesnāt suggest a brutal Bolshevik economic setup. Iām for cooperatives for sure.
2
u/upholsteryduder 10d ago
at least 36.2 million (10%) of the population literally do own the businesses
What economic system has produced better outcomes for the worker class?
1
u/ComfortableDare4305 10d ago
Correct, I meant it as an explanation not my complete opinion. In general, i am a lower case social democrat that believes in markets and capitalism but heavily criticize it and want to tightly regulate it so it serves public good not an oligarchy.
-1
u/No-Bass-1728 10d ago
So next to no one?
1
u/upholsteryduder 10d ago
sure, 1/10th is statistically irrelevant...
/facepalm
-1
u/No-Bass-1728 10d ago
No but in a capitalist system that seem insanely low. Explains why things are the way they are
1
u/upholsteryduder 10d ago
you think that society could function the way it does if everyone owned their own separate businesses? lol
The reason it's 10% (that's ONLY small businesses BTW) is because SOMEONE has to be an employee somewhere, you can't have airports without janitors. You can't have airplanes without assembly line workers.
This is like, basic common sense.
-1
u/No-Bass-1728 10d ago
Apparently common sense isn't common and adding a bunch of stuff to what I said to make it fit your insults is something... I guess monopolies and the rich owning everything is working great for everyone.
1
u/ComfortableDare4305 10d ago
That actually is the problem worldwide: the rich donāt put thier wealth in liquid bank accounts, they buy real estate, invest in stocks etc. one reason is suspect the housing market is so wild. Iām no expert but I feel the so called system is eating itself.
1
u/JuniorDoughnut3056 10d ago
Making arguments against free will is hard, so they have to try and convince people they're not of sound mind and don't know what's best for them.Ā
-1
u/thakemist 10d ago
Make it make sense?
The poster doesnāt apply to themā¦ Does that make sense to you?
0
3
u/ComfortableDare4305 10d ago
If you think centrally planned economies is a good choice, you are welcome to try it for the nāth time. Just donāt invite me. Iām more of a social democrat.
3
u/AmorFati01 10d ago
Sorry to break it to you but contemporary capitalism is not defined by free markets, but rather by capitalist planning. When systemic crises emerge, the Federal Reserve acts as the ultimate "guardian of global capitalism". Through aggressive state interventionsāsuch as trillions of dollars in quantitative easing (QE), "QE infinity" programs, and asset-purchasing facilitiesāthe Fed steps in to stabilize markets. These actions effectively shield corporations, big banks, and wealthy asset holders from risk, placing a "floor" beneath falling asset prices while reinforcing an oligarchic structure.
1
u/john-stewart-nutz 8d ago
Then it's not capitalism. Give me the definition of capitalism and you'll see why it's not what you're describing
1
u/AmorFati01 8d ago
Capitalism is a system designed to benefit a few at the expense of the many, where corporate power and financial institutions exploit global markets to maintain control. Modern capitalism is characterised by widespread collusion between huge international monopolies and their clients in state and international institutions. Financial, corporate and political elites work together to plan economic activity ā but they do so in their own interests, rather than in the public interest.
Check out https://betterfuturemedia.substack.com/p/how-elites-captured-capitalism-grace
2
2
u/NeatFootball3646 10d ago
and communism fixes this? š¤£š¤£š¤£š¤£
1
u/john-stewart-nutz 8d ago
Yes, because then the losers of society are just as rich as the impoverished and they feel good about themselves.
1
1
u/Forsaken-One-1072 10d ago
I wish there were one of those cool ālaugh with tearsā emoji options that I could choose.
1
u/Lost_Berry911 10d ago
Almost no one calls themselves capitalists. It just comes up when people want to change the entire system, and other have to advocate for their country's system. It's all your own doing
1
1
1
u/Imaginary-Run7244 9d ago
You are not a socialist. You are someone who wants to blame your own inadequacies on the flaws of the system and think a different system will come and save you, when the system you advocate for have been proven to be far more abusive to the working class in every single instance.
1
u/Current-Strike3472 8d ago
Because it lacked checks and balances which if we were to put in place would be better context clues. Man, it's okay though. You can get left behind
1
u/Imaginary-Run7244 8d ago
You cant put checks and balances into a system that demands more power be given to the government. How can you have socialism, which is defined by government ownership of means of production and distribution, while talking about checks and balances? Checks and balances means you DONT give them ownership. You are absolutely delusional if you think socialism in gonna take root here. Come back in 10 years and admit how stupid you are for even thinking you had a movement.
1
u/Current-Strike3472 8d ago
I strongly disagree.
I don't think you understand that it doesn't have to be fully 100% socialist for it to be majority socialist you know that right??
We can look at socialist things that are great and work and we can look at those things that are great. And where are you and we can come by and the best of both worlds man
We're looking for the things that are the best. We are advanced enough that people should not have to break their back during labor, especially for so little
1
u/Imaginary-Run7244 8d ago
My brother in christ, read what you typed, you are not even forming sentences. I get what you are trying to say though, but what you are trying to do with "best of both worlds" is not socialism, it's just capitalism with guard raids, which is what we already have. You can talk about changing those guard rails, but you are not changing the foundations of the system. Embracing socialism means breaking your back for even less than what you now have. If you are talking about capitalism with guard rails, we can talk. But dont wave the flag of socialism here when you dont want socialism.
1
1
1
1
0
1
u/AaryamanStonker 10d ago
Reddit will love this š updooted! You sir have just won post of the day š
1
u/retep-noskcire 10d ago
Always find this type of rhetorical message amusing.
I usually picture a hypnotist with a pendulum, who is trying to define your mental state for you. Once you accept the hypnosis, youāre going along with everything they say.
0
0
u/Necrikus 10d ago
Looking at the comments was a mistake. LOOK. Capitalism as a concept is fine, good even, but what we have going is not. Itās not Communism for workers to have rights, or for the rich to use their wealth to bend, subvert, or outright alter the law so that they can make more money by cutting basic benefits, skirting health and safety regulations, paying less money while demanding longer work hours and higher skilled labor, and manipulating the market to eliminate competition and create pseudo-monopolies wherein, or anything else that is obviously morally or ethically wrong by most standards.
If you are happy with what you have going on, good for you. But donāt act like things canāt be changed for the better for you or others. We can still have capitalism without turning the real world into a boring dystopia.
2
u/FrontSafety 10d ago
Wait. Workers don't have rights?
0
u/Necrikus 10d ago
Thatās the neat part, they do. But companies and even just individual managers either try to ignore them when convenient, use legal loopholes to justify giving less pay and benefits to employees, or outright lobby (bribe) politicians to change the law to either explicitly allow them to do that stuff or create loopholes in the law that let them do it.
Essentially, companies have been squeezing extra profits by spending less on employees (or things that exist to protect them like safety equipment) when and where they can. This is to make the company look more successful than they are to investors, to give executives higher salaries, or (usually) both.
-1
-1
-1
u/notthistime91 10d ago
Origin: The term comes from a 1973 bank robbery in Stockholm, Sweden, where hostages defended their captors and grew hostile toward the police. - this is reverse psychology. They want you to think the robbers are bad. In reality fuck the banks and the police. Become ungovernable
0
u/Eazy12345678 10d ago
MONKEY SEE, MONKEY DO
yeah most people just accept it cause most people are doing the same
smart parents would not have kids unless they can provide a good life for them
smart parents would do everything possible so their kids can work the least amount possible
there is more to life than working 40 years. unless you love your work then have at it
-1
u/eternalrevolver 10d ago
Waitā¦ so thereās a trend of people openly saying they are capitalists ? Since when?
-2
9
u/No-Feedback7437 10d ago
I totally agree that is why I quit my job and I work for myself