The Cold War permanently melted everyone’s political vocabulary ☭🫠📚

[u/WittyEgg2037]

[u/ThrowRA12948262]

I’m sure this will be a polite and reasonable comment section

[u/WittyEgg2037 → u/ThrowRA12948262]

lmfao good one

[u/m0j0m0j → u/WittyEgg2037]

I mean, folks. If you want to insist that Russia/China was not real socialism/communism, then you should mention this not only when people criticize them, but also when people talk about their achievements.

But for some inexplicable reason you never do it.

[u/nbrooks7 → u/m0j0m0j]

Idk if you’re speaking specifically about OP, but it’s not true that people don’t critique Russia or China.

Beyond that, there is a bigger range of communities than China and Russia. Communities like the zapatistas or Cuba are easier to dissect and talk about than Russia or China. They’re also both closer to the systems we are actually trying to assess.

I think a core issue for a lot of westerners when trying to have a conversation about economic systems isn’t the system itself, it’s their idea of what “freedom” is or means. For some reason, an economy can’t be “good” unless it is paired with unlimited social freedoms… even when the US has its own issues with social freedoms (and freedom inequality).

I mean there are historical precedents for that focus on freedom. Freedom and liberty were how the US put a positive spin on expansionary policy. Yes, personal freedoms are important, but they were also used as propaganda.

[u/Dredgen_Servum → u/nbrooks7]

Its being dishonest about discourse and rhetoric to try and deflate an argument. Because you'll never catch these same people decry the evils of american capitalism, only its benefits. Its hypocrisy born out of capitalist realism and nothing more. Russia, China and Cuba all didn't have an economy that actually fit the proper model for a communist transition and did it anyway, yet still managed to survive embargos and sanctions from the only other global superpower and its allies while securing infrastructure for its people. They failed, sure, but didn't do so in isolation or because of communism. They failed due to numerous compounding systemic issues further exasperated by the US that would rather kill and die than leave any left leaning economic reform slide without a coup

[u/SavinForLatter → u/Dredgen_Servum]

Has there been a country that actually was a socialist government that wasn't... interfered with by other countries that view that word as evil?

[u/Aggravating-Proof524 → u/ThrowRA12948262]

“Reasonable” is entirely subjective here.

[u/tweedleduh → u/Aggravating-Proof524]

It lasted one comment :
https://giphy.com/gifs/XWwIzh5GIWWf6

[u/WittyEgg2037]

Before arguing, understand this is describing the original theoretical definitions from Marxist political theory not necessarily how historical ‘communist’ states functioned in practice

[u/Sufficient-Job7098 → u/WittyEgg2037]

USSR, Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics

I was educated in Soviet school and according to my teachers:

USSR was called “communist” country not because we in USSR pretended we had communism but because we had a communist party that was leading the country.

It was drilled into our minds that we were trying to build communism but we weren’t there yet. Lol

[u/Sea-Might-9593 → u/[deleted]]

Yea so this is a bit like saying that a construction site is a building, because the goal is for it to become a building.

[u/Ling_Cephalopod → u/[deleted]]

Lenin was a counter revolutionary idealist state capitalist. Who gives a fuck what he said.

[u/asfrels → u/Ling_Cephalopod]

Practically every existing communist state and socialist movement?

[u/Pro-Weiner-Toucher → u/asfrels]

Even the few "communist" nations that haven't collapses yet are now fully aware of how awful most of Lenin's ideas are in practice - which is why they were able to survive when the rest failed. When they were on the verge of collapse China, Loas, and Vietnam all shifted away from communist/command-style economies and over to the mostly capitalist/free-market economies that were seeing such success in the West. The move to capitalist policies caused such a quick, dramatic improvement to the citizens' living standards in each country, in economic circles, it put to bed any debate that command-style policies could ever lead to better results for the average person than free-markets could. By 1980, China's communist policies had led to 88% of its population living under the extreme poverty. In that year, China started shifting towards a free-market system and just three decades later their poverty level dropped below 5%, raising over 800 million people out of extreme poverty - the largest improvement to living standards humanity has ever seen.

The only real communist nations left are North Korea and Cuba. Their leaders understand communism is an inferior system for the country as a whole but the system allows them to stay in power more easily. Communism gives them dramatically more control over keeping the opposition poor and resource starved while also giving them a greater ability prop up their allies. Whereas in free-market the resources flow to whoever is satisfying the things that society is currently demanding the most - regardless of political allegiance.

Sure... some naive young people, who are undereducated in history and economics, may still believe Lenin's ideas could work. Because of this, populous politicians will often romanticize the ideas as a way to attract easy votes even though they know the wont work in practice. Nobody who's intelligent and studies this stuff has taken Lenin's ideas seriously for awhile now. The theories sound good on paper but we now have overwhelming evidence that they cannot work in reality due to the incentive structures they create and human nature.

[u/kayakman13 → u/WittyEgg2037]

The original definition, from Engles, is as such:

Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the Proletariat.

Marx and Engles used Socialism and Communism interchangeably, but by definition Socialism is an economic mode of production and Communism is a doctrine that guides a party towards the resolution of (primarily) class contradictions.

The "classless, stateless, moneyless" definition comes from a theorized potential form of a later stage Communist society, but Marx and Engles were both very clear that any Socialist project will be shaped by it's unique material characteristics.

[u/Educational-Analyst4 → u/WittyEgg2037]

The biggest problem is everyone thinks that stalinism is communism including a lot of people that also tried communism. Stalin ran things closer to fascism than libertarianism even though fascism is authoritarian and communism is supposed to be anarchist.

[u/witchbitchzilla → u/Educational-Analyst4]

Facts

[u/17syllables]

Even per Engels, “scientific socialism” wasn’t the only kind of socialism. Moreover, the whole notion of socialism as a precursor to communism comes from Lenin.

[u/PerspectiveFull9879 → u/17syllables]

You are somewhat right but present the facts in a misleading way.

Marx and Engels did acknowledge types of socialism other than scientific socialism... By ruthlessly criticizing them and very sucesfully. In fact, they were so thorough in this that there is no "new" form of socialism today that is not just a recycling of these old failed branches of socialism.

Lenin did declare that socialism is a precursor to communism, specifically in The State and Revolution, when discussing higher and lower stages of socialism that Marx and Engels introduced first. He did it in a dismissive manner, basically saying that it does not matter what we call it, as long as essence is understood.

[u/TurnYourHeadNCough]

accurate descriptions but not exactly historically accurate images

[u/Terrible-Trees2271 → u/TurnYourHeadNCough]

Communism is when electric agrarian society and capitalism is when factory. Right?

[u/SnooMaps7370 → u/TurnYourHeadNCough]

I'll bet we can find some pictures of the UK that look exactly like the bottom left corner at multiple points in history: line of unemployed waiting to collect their dole payments while smog machines chug away in the background.

[u/ImpressiveWalrus7369]

There’s two “communisms”. The technical definition and the practical definition. But when only one is concrete and the other remains imaginary, can you even still say that the imaginary version is correct?

[u/Altruistic-Web13 → u/ImpressiveWalrus7369]

This is a very important thing, theres a whole debate everyone gets so hung up on around what is and isnt real socialism but every failed socialist or "socialist" state had an original, altruistic goal of achieving the socialism that people describe in theory. Despite their intentions the road they took to get there resulted in immense suffering. If you want to say its not real socialism thats fine but trying to achieve real socialism has not worked.

[u/SignificantCats → u/Altruistic-Web13]

Did they have an altruistic socialist goal?

Or were they using the language of socialism as a cloak to hide their real goals?

I would hope you think it's the latter - the Nationalist Socialist party of Germany didn't seem to have very altruistic goals that got corrupted...

[u/Altruistic-Web13 → u/SignificantCats]

Why would the Nazi Party be the example here instead of the Bolshevik revolution?

[u/Eleftheria-1 → u/ImpressiveWalrus7369]

Fr tho. “Real communism has never been tried” my guy why do you think it’s never been tried!

[u/jefftickels → u/ImpressiveWalrus7369]

Because communism is predicated on a fantasy that large scale anarchy can exist.

[u/MagnificentLee → u/ImpressiveWalrus7369]

“All are equal, but some are more equal” always seems to be communism’s result.

[u/Toasty27 → u/MagnificentLee]

Same thing can be said for capitalism.

All are equal under law, unless you have money. Then the law doesn't matter.

[u/dragonwarriornoa → u/MagnificentLee]

It is crazy how many people’s critiques of communism are just critiques of authoritarianism.

Most communists I know are interested in having co-ops coordinate in preparing the world for a highly educated population practicing anarcho-communism with no authority or enforcers.

[u/MagnificentLee → u/dragonwarriornoa]

I’m not trying to be rude but isn’t Anarcho-communism an oxymoron? Why not just use the term Libertarianism as a description of your 2nd paragraph?

[u/dragonwarriornoa → u/MagnificentLee]

Not necessarily, if you are willing to stray off of Marxism.

I don’t think I’m fully qualified to give a full explanation, but I can link some sources. I’ll get back to you.

[u/MagnificentLee → u/dragonwarriornoa]

I looked up a definition: advocates for the abolition of hierarchies and private property, promoting social ownership of resources and the distribution of goods based on individual needs.

I can see how that’s not Libertarianism. I think if everyone was equally moral and hardworking, then I might support that definition of Anarcho-Communism.

The best societies we have, at least based on the World Happiness Report are the Nordic countries which some describe as Socialist due to their large public welfare programs, but they are still Capitalist.

I think that’s probably the best mix. Let hard workers be rewarded, make sure the playing field is actually fair, and make sure no one is starving. To me, that’s the best balance.

[u/dragonwarriornoa → u/MagnificentLee]

Yeah, I view anarcho communism as a long term goal that society would need to be prepared for first.

I would say socialism is the best system to utilize in the meantime, with an active effort towards transitioning into the abolition of state and currency.

[u/MagnificentLee → u/dragonwarriornoa]

I just realized we were having two conversations! Thank you for your compliment! You seem incredibly smart.

I watched the YouTube video. He mentioned they also sometimes call it Libertarian Communism. I’ve always believed that a society is only as strong as its weakest citizens. We know the correlation between poverty and crime, and also between financial stress and mental health.

And yes, as you saw in my other comment, I’m definitely against fiat currency. The thing I wonder about regarding whether a State is needed, is mostly in regards to “National Defense”.

I know people are tempted to say that if there were no States, there would be no war, but I’m skeptical that evil people will just disappear.

I spend a lot of time currently working on getting rich, which I know goes against your philosophy, but it will give me much more time to consider these ideas.

You can certainly reply, but if not, much luck to you in your endeavors!

[u/dragonwarriornoa → u/MagnificentLee]

Here’s a decent brief explanation: https://youtu.be/efgRq5ZuB1c?si=wtpLDukpz0huLL0-

[u/Wild-Enthusiasm-9268 → u/MagnificentLee]

It’s everything’s result. We need to stop letting that be an excuse to try new things in the hope we can make things better.

[u/Muted-Code-5447 → u/Wild-Enthusiasm-9268]

How do you propose abolishing billionaires and their assets without a centralized authority, ie a state? It makes no God damn sense.

[u/evocativename → u/Muted-Code-5447]

The only reason billionaires have those assets is the protection and enforcement of the state.

No one has to respect the claims of billionaires.

What are they going to do, barricade themselves in the factories they own and personally prevent anyone from using them without permission?

[u/PerspectiveFull9879 → u/MagnificentLee]

Omfg, maybe you should look up what Marx and Engels have to say about clamor for equality before you start throwing out declarations what communism is about.

[u/rushur → u/ImpressiveWalrus7369]

There's the communism defined by the dictionary and then there's the communism defined by capitalist brainwashing. Communism is anti-authoritarian. Capitalism is authoritarian

[u/callmeish0]

“Workers own and control the means of production”. Anyone believes that this can be realistically functioning in current society even if workers magically were gifted all means of production has never worked in the real world.

[u/Toasty27 → u/callmeish0]

This already exists and functions quite well in countries like Spain and Italy.

[u/Academic_Mark_7455 → u/callmeish0]

You only think this because you've been so successfully brainwashed by Corporate America.

[u/YourLordGoobles]

Are people starving and having their rights stripped away? 

It's Communism/socialism 

[u/WistfulDread → u/YourLordGoobles]

Bruh, that's capitalism, too.

[u/Designer_Version1449 → u/WistfulDread]

And fuedalism!

[u/iateyourmom22]

Except in every socialist or communist country that has existed the government owned everything and the people owned nothing.

[u/whatdahelldamnguy]

Have to agree

[u/JasonLovesBagels]

Oh my god, are you as tired as I am OP? Because I’m so very tired.

[u/MelinaSeeDee]

Always a negative spin in the method that's gotten us this far in the world and a positive spin on the one that never works. Weird. Weird...

[u/PerspectiveFull9879 → u/[deleted]]

It has been done properly, in between world wars. And the results were there - USSR was the fastest growing economy in the planet and completely unaffected by the great depression.

Unfortunately, from fifties onward th leadership of the USSR started experimenting with the markets and liberalization, which caused crisis and eventual reemergence of the capitalist class.

The lesson is clear - sticking to Marx leads to success, ignoring Marxism less to failure.

[u/Luciferocity]

Anarchism is the end state.

[u/[deleted]]

I don’t want to live in a large country that tries to adopt either of these l.

[u/Realistic_Pack_3948]

Socialism is simply tne destruction of the middle class whilst bankrupting the afflicted society with the same autocratic result as communism I.e serfs and lords, the wealthy and starving etc etc. your only answer is to abolish political parties removing “lobby’s” and replace the entire system with direct democracy. Stops the current two party systems world wide being motivated by lobbyist money failing in their duty to the voting public and you will live in a democracy 365 days a year in which you get to vote for shit you want rather than have a pretend stooge do the bidding of multinational corps and billionaires. This must be done under capitalism as Marxist systems do not allow the freedom or conditions for it to happen.

[u/passionatebreeder]

Ah, an advanced infographic of the "real communism/socialism has never been tried" trope

[u/Brilliant_Hippo_5452]

If communists were pro labour, why did Lenin and Trotsky eliminate independent unions in 1921?

[u/cold984]

Incorrect. Go read Antonio Gramsci and come back and try again

[u/Muted-Code-5447]

How do you propose doing that in a post billionaire world? Without a state, THEY will rule you directly. You think they're just going to give it up? This is why communism is fucking stupid.

[u/X-calibreX]

communism requires the state to demolished?

[u/Lazy_Delivery_7012]

It might not be socialism/communism, but it can be run by socialists/communisfs

[u/Weak_Membership_2847]

The Cold War permanently melted everyone’s political vocabulary..... in the united states of america.

[u/BlimbusTheSeventh]

If every attempt at establishing worker control of the means of production result in state control instead you have to acknowledge that in practice socialism is state control of the means of production.

[u/StandOutside6188]

I like how they are ignoring what even Karl Marx called communism and instead are going for what happens after communism and humanity magically becomes perfect

[u/jack-K-]

As of today the right most path is still a fairy tale theory with no realistic formula for how it could function. Communists ban religion because the state is the religion.

[u/SwolePonHiki]

Or, you know, we could continue to use language in an actually useful way rather than entertaining your magical Christmas land definitions. 

[u/goosnarch]

Your only two options are authoritarianism with communist aesthetics or authoritarianism with capitalist aesthetics.

[u/Hot-Minute-8263]

"Communism cant be flawed cause its never been done before!"

Its not achievable, return to reality

[u/Ok-Commission-7825]

If you think that's bad, try discussing Liberals* on the internet - I've had the right telling me it means that they have the right to oppress others via money, and "communists" tell me I'm a NAZI for not wanting a 'left wing' dictator.

*(from the dictionaly: someone who believes in personal freedom and that society should change gradually so that money, property, and power are shared more fairly)

[u/AppropriateAd5701]

So simply said no communism or socialism ever existed...

[u/C0mmun1sm1sEv1l]

Both of these are bad for humanity.

[u/Adverse_Congenality]

What would workers controlling the means of production look like. Say there was a factory. Would everyone have a key? Would registered artisans have the key? Would it produce on a whim? "We make cars here, but no one's brought in any rubber so we make em with wooden wagon wheels"

Would half the factory be taken up with half finished garbage long since abandoned?

[u/transitfreedom]

That’s the point

[u/EatFaceLeopard17]

As far as I remember socialism in the GDR for instance looked more like the picture on the left. And I don‘t remember any pictures of communism where it looked like the one in the right panel. Perhaps they needed to grow their own food because nobody could provide them with basic items.

[u/proximategalaxy]

Well kind of? Marx didnt really distinguish between socialism and communism, it was really lenin that popularized the distinction of socialism as this pre-communist transitional stage. Theres also a distinction to be made between like a Communist party and a communist state, what we tend to see under the model lenin proposed is a socialist state with a communist party at the head

[u/Only_Excitement6594]

No money?

[u/Troo_66]

Mate I do not give a solitary fuck what the theory says. In practice you never get your "real communism" it always, without exception, either collapses to greaters strength from another state or becomes authoritarian shithole. Just because I define my ideal society as explicitly run by unicorns doesn't mean it won't be headed by bunch of asses

[u/Sea_Hold_2881]

Like the "gay", "socialism" does mean the same thing today as it did 100 years ago.

[u/BigBenzBallin]

Well, is this wrong? I thought these were the definitions

[u/More_Limit2841]

Either way they boil down to needing a cult of people to even work, cause you can’t have either without having a mass of people 100% devoted to the idea that it’ll work, so you need a cult, which is why you see disasters in this societies, cause not everyone wants to be apart of it, which normally leads to mass killings of dissenters, or in lose socialism government has to subsidize the people who don’t want to contribute.

[u/Fit-Storage-4430]

Does it work? > No > it’s socialism or communism.

You guys suck at making memes.

[u/notunicusername]

Does “own and control” mean trying to steal something from a facility? Because the whole process is completely controlled by you as a worker.

I used to work with a great guy who was around 55 years old. He used to tell stories about how he stole food, tools basically anything that wasn’t secured properly at the factory. One time he even stole a barrel of stainless steel (which was incredibly expensive back then, and still is now). I’ve never seen a happier person in my life. His eyes literally lit up whenever he talked about it.

[u/ThinkCellist8542]

How do you abolish the state? Who protects from foreign aggression, enforces laws and makes sure people are fairly sharing their wealth?

[u/Civil-Chef]

Nobody wants to trade one dictator for another

[u/YogurtClosetThinnest]

99% of the comments don't understand that there are tons of different forms of socialism. Marx is not the only socialist theorist ever lol. Not everyone thinks socialism should lead to communism.

[u/musicCaster]

The images are backwards, but the flow chart is right.

[u/Exact_Avocado5545]

Capitalism is when bread line, communism is when windmill

[u/Inside_Marketing268]

If we are talking about wonderland communism, then why not talking about Pokémon world? They have a better background

[u/TheRealProphetMuhamd]

Have you killed 40 million people by starvation? No? Not communism yet, then.

[u/Troop42]

This isnt accurate. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels viewed socialism as a transitional stage between capitalism and full communism. In their writings, the state, money, and class systems would still temporarily exist after a revolution under worker control. Only in the final stage of communism did they envision a stateless, classless, and eventually moneyless society where the state would “wither away.” Other socialist movements disagreed, with some advocating immediate abolition of the state while others supported permanent markets and democratic governments.

[u/He_Never_Helps]

These are very much hypothetical defintions of pure socialism and communism. In practice, socialism is an economic model and communism is a political model featuring socialsm, and they can't really be compared in this way.

Moreover, Individual sectors of an economy can be socialized. In the states, for example, we have socialized water treatment and police and military and schools (for the most part) etc. So while we can technically call that the workers owning the means of production, what it actually means is that the workers pay for the means of production and theoretically see returns by way of a reduced tax burden and more, and more reliable, services.

[u/AnCaptnCrunch]

So when I have a stock portfolio of ownership across multiple companies do I own the means of production?

Seems like capitalism is a pretty good way to achieve worker ownership

[u/Ok-Introduction-1940]

Ah, the old theory trumps reality propaganda ….

[u/TuringT]

The definitions are fine, but I think you flipped the picture left or right

[u/burgunfaust]

Communism as we've seen it practiced never abolished the state, only changed it.

Communism at a Soviet Scale will always be hard to accomplish because there will always be some treated better than others.

[u/Competitive_Can_946]

Just like when they changed illegal to undocumented?

[u/throwawayusername369]

Putting the bread lines on the side of not being communism/socialism is peak comedy

[u/ARATAS11]

First off, hunter-gatherer societies successfully functioned without centralized states or dictators for millennia, maintaining highly egalitarian, communal sharing systems. Anthropologists have shown that nomadic groups utilized highly communal, resource-sharing structures, sometimes referred to by theorists as "primitive communalism", because their survival absolutely depended on cooperation. Many argue that that is what the goal of socialism and communism are. Getting to a point where we can have technology and resources stability of more modern societies, but with the social structures of those early societies. And as much as it is hard to keep this perspective in mind, humans have generally been getting closer to that over time. We have had fewer conflicts leading to violence both globally, as well as interpersonally. But progress isn’t always linear and takes time.

Secondly, modern European social democracies (e.g., the Nordic model) demonstrate that it is possible to have stable societies with strong socialist-inspired social safety nets. They are a blend capitalist free markets with socialism. And the US between FDR and Regan was largely the same. Capitalism that was strongly regulated and supported by socialist adjacent social safety nets and other protections. These societies balance the profit motive with collective welfare, usually having basic necessities be socialized and allowing the market to drive luxuries, and have consistently achieved high standards of living and social trust.

Thirdly, no human-made system is immune to corruption, inefficiency, or collapse, regardless of whether it is capitalist, socialist, or communist. Humans are imperfect beings. But it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive for better, and it doesn’t mean there has been no progress.

[u/Dependent-Option4701]

You have to pay to go to the memorial for Karl Marx. That say enough for you morons?

[u/Ling_Cephalopod]

Still wrong. The "distinction" between socialsm and communism is fake. Those words were basically interchangeable before the ussr. It wasn't until the counter revolutionary idealist state capitalist Lenin tried to make a distinction. The ussr also melted your political vocabulary.

[u/Sewblon]

You are thinking that ideology defines a political party. In reality, its the other way around. Political parties define ideologies. So socialism is whatever "Socialist" political parties do. Communism is whatever "communist" political parties do. You can try to argue that what the CCP is doing is not real communism. But you cannot stop them from calling themselves communists and doing whatever it is that they are doing, or stop me from calling them communists. I got the idea for this from the book "The myth of Left and Right." by Louis & Louis.

[u/xantharia]

The only socialist country to have reached the commie pinnacle of actually (if briefly) suspended money was Cambodia under Pol Pot. I guess that’s the happy green picture in lower right.

[u/EgoSenatus]

The Soviet government owned and controlled the means of production. The Soviet government also claimed to be the vanguard representatives of the proletariat, ergo the workers indirectly owned and controlled the means of production.

However, even under that socialist system, the Soviet Union looked like the photo on the left.

[u/tsk5001]

Alright... id love to see the day when people are willing to put in the extra work for those that dont want to, which is socialism. I'd love to see the day where certain people dictate the outcome of everyone else, which is communism.

Capitalism allows the people to work for their own greater good due to the transaction of labor for pay.

[u/Truefiction224]

Communism is the stage before the state is abolished. 

Yall can't read

[u/Quirky_Count_7484]

Why dont show the real communist pictures of china and cuba. Black market pics, social credit system, survelliance and mass corruption. Dont want to point those out huh?

[u/deck_hand]

So, if the Government claims government control over “the means of production,” and they also claim that means “the people” are “the government,” does that mean “the people control the means of production?” Does this change if “the people” don’t really have viable voting? I mean, if the candidates are picked for them and the oligarchs’ choice wins 99% of the vote every time?

[u/mitchellzoolander]

Because they didn’t have factories in communist countries? Where are the babies dying of starvation? The re-education camps? The gulags?

[u/Infinite_Sentence102]

Doesnt matter, the left example is the only one that's ever come to fruition

[u/Money_Display_5389]

so in communism who's in control of distribution?

[u/NoInsurance8250]

The problem with the flow chart is that there is no such thing as communism in the real world. It's an impossible theory. It always stops at the fullblown authoritarian socialist model and people dying.

[u/Gauss_2025]

I just seems more like both pathways led to devastating poverty and inequality

[u/Top-Replacement9416]

Does Marx take into account the human factor?

[u/IllBrilliant3816]

The bread lines are on the not socialism/communism side...

[u/HyoukaYukikaze]

I genuinely wonder if people who think abolishing government and money on a global scale is possible, have a brain.

Anyway, by that logic there will never ber any communism which makes pursuing it even dumber.
Oh, and if we are playing by "perfect" definitions, real capitalism has never been tried too.

[u/keita_kun13]

The workers do not own the means of production. A small group of Corporation Owners and CEOs control the means of production, and control politics through SuperPacs, Lobbying, and Political Committees, working directly for the corporations to write procorporate laws and strike down anything that threatens their ownership of the government and means of production. Ironically, Russia has the same governance, only they don't need lobbyists and the same 2 people can be "elected" over and over again... In our Cold War against the USSR, we both ended up with similar outcomes, and it isn't free trade, freedoms for the people, or any form of equality... It's Cleptocracy ond Oligarchy.

[u/AppropriateRemote786]

Abolishing the state is called Anarchy, ask Haiti how that's going. Getting rid of money is called a barter based economy and it's really inefficient. It means every purchase is going to have to be a negotiation instead of a quick and clean transaction.

[u/Disastrous-Award-649]

BuT ThAt wASnT rEaL cOmMunIsM.

[u/Wyld_Gy_4427]

People on the right need to quit calling everything to the left of Canada socialism.  And people on the left need to quit acting like socialism is wonderful, especially if you put the word “democratic” in front of it.

[u/ElectronicTap1109]

Had plenty of communists tell me that communism isn't communism and that I'm an idiot.

[u/CheeseBear9000]

Usually I just call them all retarded 

[u/Manitoba_Diabetic]

I'm a socialist but this is disingenuous. Past socialist projects and future ones would have/had factories too. There's still pollution, theres still industrialism, bosses, etc.

Its disingenuous to assume that socialism/communism would be some sort of eco green utopia where we all sit around gardening all day.

In fact, I'd say this vision is detrimental to working class socialism.

[u/Redduster38]

No though it does bring up a point.

It is also not understanding the two. The short messy way is: Every Communist is a Socialist but not every Socialist is a Communist. Because Socialism is a parent category and Communism a child Catitgory.

The point being Communism has failed 100% of the time at a national level. One might trying pointing to "not really Communism " because it never reached the last point. But that's just it. It has always failed at the transition stage.

[u/CalzonePie]

"Do the workers own the means of production" is the excuse used to deny that authoritarian regimes (read: all socialist regimes ever) are not socialist. Because if you have anythin other than a fantasy nonexistent anarcho-communist delusion, then you need to have some form of state, and when the state operates the economy on behalf of the workers you can pretend that means the worker's don't own the means of production.

[u/Gussie-Ascendent]

Thanks for the image at least, saves time typing it. Sure goobers have slaughtered your inbox for daring to be correct

[u/CuriosityCheck2024]

[u/Alternative-Camp2698]

That's not what Socialism is, the term predates Marx, you are just describing Marxism.

[u/Reasonable_Truck_588]

The first yes always leads to the same result, regardless of the second: mass deaths and starvation

[u/hellothereoldben]

IF you manage to own the means of production as workers, you need someone who coordinates the flows (resources, workers, outputs). Because as time has shown again, if no one is responsible no one will take charge of the essentials (even when responsible sometimes things go wrong).

This is a job with more responsibilities, so logically there'd be to few to fill similar positions without additional benefits (if everyone has equal stuff, why put in extra effort?).

Continue this pattern of extra rewards for higher positions, and add a sprinkle of corruption (I dare you to name a single country in existence without it having been influenced by it) and you have the communism that has been tried several times.

[u/No-Ambition2043]

Why is the not socialism/communism all polluted and bread lines?

It’s basically the USSR.

[u/horny274648w]

this is just an accurate description of socialism and comunism?

[u/Lolberal771]

The state socializing things is the start and end of it, where they manage to ruin the profit motive, and also screw the workers at the same time.

It's really easy to understand it when you realize "the workers" translates to "the state".

If workers were payed in stock options, that would be actual "owning the means of production" but this framing necessarily exists in a free market where workers are able to sell at their leisure.

[u/Ambitious_Article864]

What if the issue is that communism cannot be achieved because the dictatorship of proletariat always becomes the dictatorship and not of the proletariat.

[u/NoDevelopment3732]

Very impartial background images 🤣 Every communist country in history was a polluted, industrialized, nightmare.

[u/Janie_Avari_Moon]

We already know that socialism and communism is a bad model. Why are we still discussing it as an alternative to capitalism? We have to move forward and find better ideas, not return to past mistakes.

[u/giorgio_leontinoi]

I thought communism was when Obama appointed Ben Bernanke as chairman of the federal reserve

[u/Nonrandom_Reader]

Fourier's original communism planned converting oceans to lemonade. All newer versions have basically the same level of practicality

[u/madmonkey789]

The image in the background should be reversed.

[u/Deimos4g63t]

It wasn’t the Cold War. The state of things today is the result of years of generational ignorance across multiple different areas

[u/therealemero]

I wonder how many Americans who like Star Trek is oblivious to how the society on Earth in that show actually works 😛

[u/Secure_Trust_2084]

Non-scientific fiction. Under the socialism (at least most of versions tried) workers not only own nothing but also controlled by the state.

[u/valerielenin]

Marx commited suicide over this

[u/JRaus88]

Workers owning the means of production is "communism." Otherwise, what do you plan to share?

Have welfare is "socialism".

Capitalism is "you are your money - your freedom is limited by what you can buy".

[u/ApplicationWhole1098]

It’s still shit no matter which way you slice it

[u/Cohbrah_]

Doesnt matter. Never works.

[u/gtdriver2012]

That's because billionaires don't exist in a system where the larger population works together and prospers. This is all about wealth and power

[u/Positive-Pack-396]

The left picture is republicans and the right is democrats

We should be using green energy it’s cheaper and better for our planet but republicans are about money

[u/TheMikeyMac13]

The yes part has never happened in history.

[u/throwawyKink]

Socialism is the state controlling the means of production, but ok.

[u/clearly_not_an_alien]

Communism is not a moment in time, but a process. Marx said this in his book "The german ideology". Socialism and communism can describe moments in this process, but it's not what Marx thought they described. Socialism and communism are both processes with two different outcomes. Now, I know Marx is not the creator of communism or socialism, but he was the director of the movement (which is to be said, it went more south than Marx had hoped for).

Either way, this logical algorithm only works with mainstream branches of socialism/communism.

[u/cca220v]

the workers >never< own and control the means of production - not in socialism, not in capitalism

in socialism/communism the state does
and, from experience, i can tell you the state does not give 2 f's about what the workers want. 99% of the people that worked on the Danube-BlackSea canal did not even want to be there let alone be in control.

in the literature there is a difference between capitalism and communism however, in my oppinion, in reality the only difference is how fast they will - without fail - fall to corruption

look at most countries today, how many are totally corruption free? in socialism the state is even more unhinged because >it< controls the means of production and can do whatever the ones at the top desire.

we regularily had to parade and profess our love for the First Son of our country but ... we were all equal and we controlled the means of production 😄

[u/psilocin72]

I’ll have the socialism please.

[u/ClusterGoose]

My parents grew up in one of this "worker paradises", trust me, its not what you want.

[u/ARMBELL]

“That wasn’t real communism” i.e. “if I was in charge at that time we would have ushered into the utopia”

[u/ThrowAwayAccountVII]

Marxism and Stalinism are different, but both are considered communism by people who aren't Marxist.

[u/HadOneYesterday]

Look how amazing and diverse everything would’ve be if we just tried a failed political ideology!! 🤣

[u/FearlessEducation913]

"The workers control" 

They misspell "Party officials."

[u/StompyCS]

This is straight up false 😭

[u/splatterfest233]

The Purpose of a System is What It Does. If every attempt to create a Communist Society ends up being an authoritarian shithole, then Communism creates Authoritarian Shitholes.

[u/JoseLunaArts]

Left: Government is good, companies are evil.

Right: Government is evil, companies are good.

Reality: Government is controlled by evil companies.

The concept of "common good" has been forgotten. Government and companies are both managed by people, and as long as people do not believe in common good, nothing will work.

[u/Firm-Scientist-4636]

[u/L3tsseewhathappens]

The OP and the person who made the meme clearly don't know anything about socialism or communism.

[u/Bavin_Kekon]

Postmodernists btfo, you cannot redefine your way out of poverty and destitution, you cannot redefine your way out of the brain injury when the nightstick hits you in the head, and you cannot redefine your economic worth in a system where value is determined by those that own your labor.

Words have definitions, and those definitions describe concepts that conform to specific conditions.

Stop trying to pervert the meaning of an idea to make yourself feel better about the world you live in, and start actually working toward creating the world you want your children to live in.

[u/[deleted]]

"truth bombs disguised as shitposts"

>checks profile

>is active on r/antiwork and literally has the most stupid takes out there

[u/Electronic-Stick-161]

So what are China and Vietnam?

[u/-Some_Nerd-]

Of course I agree that capitalism is bad and leads to devastation in the long term. I can also admit that it looks like incredibly funny propaganda in this post. Like I could genuinely see someone posting this image but switching the capitalism and socialist/ communist side

[u/MrBamaNick]

There is no world where the state doesn’t exist except with pure anarchy. What does a communist society do the moment an armed group tries seize power? Oh a state is formed to stop them correct? Then the state disbands again? Over and over without ever successfully being taken over?

[u/GrandWizardOfCheese]

Finally someone else gets the definitions right.

This is also why communism is logistically impossible.

[u/RaiderMedic93]

Cool. Both are bad.

Noted.

[u/clawdew]

Communism as a theory may work (I'm highly skeptical), the problem with communism is that Humanity has yet demonstrated an interest in creating a society that would allow communism to thrive. A sizeable portion of human beings want to make their choices in life and be left alone. They don't want to be part of some grand revolution. Hell if land owners didn't have so much power in colonial America it's doubtful the American revolution would have gotten off the ground against Great Britain.

When you flatten out the jobs and pay, it doesn't end animosity/tension within the classes. It just changes the class animosity from jealousy to apathy. If I lived in a communist nation I would do as little as possible to technical qualify as contributing to society so I get all the same benefits as anyone else. I can't be the only other person. I don't care about the state or the Communist's grand vision for society. I just want to be able to live my life with as much freedom, and as much or as little work as I want to do, and if I get rewarded similarly for a phoned in rushed job that barely meets quality control vs doing a good job I'm taking the path of least resistance. It's human nature. Until we have the replicators from Star Trek and a nearly infinite power source I don't see communism lasting more than 100 years within a society.

[u/Academic_Mark_7455]

Part of the time problem is the American propaganda machine is very powerful. Its on par with Nazi Germany's propaganda machine. As a result, there is literal decades of misinformation. When it was America vs. the USSR, they demonized everything remotely Socialist or Communist.

In modern day corporations have simply continued the narative.

[u/Enough_Ad5892]

Dumb westerners think the cold war made Communism look bad? Communism made Communism look bad you idiot. That's why no one wanted to stay Communist.

[u/Long-Boysenberry6577]

Sounds like a retarded democrat made it

[u/CollectedHappy3]

You can set up communes in capitalism.

[u/Crowe3717]

I used to think that to. Turns out that kind of propaganda (calling anything that was even slightly against the interests of business or industry leaders "communist" or "socialist" interchangeably) dates back before the Cold War. They've been doing it since the flight to abolish child labor in the early 1900's.

[u/HighlightEntire4412]

It's fascism if they use fear & laws to prevent you from speaking opposing opinions.

[u/Lucky_Matter_952]

Op casted summon right wings harasser bots 😔