The US used to be a world leader in anti-fascism. There’s even those old-timey films explaining how letting it in would ruin the American way.
https://youtu.be/42X_eAOU4DU “Don’t Be a Sucker”
Eeeh… It was only anti-fascism as in “anti-others” (who happened to be fascists in a way they differentiated from). The US has been real fucking bad from the very start and there hasn’t been a single moment where that stopped. I can’t see a single period where it isn’t the modern day meaning of fascist. Yeah, the civil war was won by the better part but it wasn’t a “good vs evil” black and white thing, because nothing is like that in reality. Faschism is deeply ingrained in the US and has always been so, especially when it comes to politicians, military, police force etc.
The US used to be a world leader in anti-fascism.
anti-fascism or anti competing fascism?
Isn’t manifested destiny already fascism?
They even called out Alexander Hamilton for being a proto-fascist.
Then that one Wall Street fuckwad wrote a book about him filled with lies and eventually turned it into a play.
If you want a hero in the founding fathers, look up Aaron Burr
And T-Paine while you’re at it!
Because the American Way™ competed with fascism about many of the same things. It is not the brag you think it is.
Both of the Cold War empires spent decades lying about what socialism was, and that process continues to this day. No wonder people are confused.
Yes.
The fire department is socialist. People like the fire department.
Ah yes, the famous socialist, Comrade Ben Franklin.
Yes, exactly that.
What an absolute joke.
Socialism is not “when the government does stuff.” Governments are tools that can be used to advance any sort of ideology or agenda. Socialism is a specific ideology (or set of ideologies), which Ben Franklin did not and could not have subscribed to on account of the ideology had not yet even been developed.
When a member of the capitalist class lobbies the government to introduce regulations designed to prevent small business from competing with his monopoly, that is not making the system “more socialist” because the government is doing “more stuff.” It is making the system more capitalist. A system that is controlled by and works for the benefit of the capitalist class is a capitalist system, regardless of the degree to which the government does things.
If anything, the more correct term would be “statist” but that’s also an absurd term, because again, governments are tools. Whoever holds power in a system will use that tool to advance their own interests, and if the tool does not exist, then it will be created. This ridiculous idea that socialism is simply an ideology based around supporting the government doing things, any government doing any things, is complete nonsense. There is not any ideology that says that, it isn’t something anyone believes. The difference between socialism and capitalism is not the degree to which the state is being used but who is using the state and to what purposes.
Capitalist states do not have fire departments because they are “partially socialist” but because capitalists don’t like having their buildings burn down any more than anyone else does.
Socialism is not “when the government does stuff.”
Of course not, only an idiot who is trying to undermine someone’s argument would claim that. Socialism is when the means of production are collectively owned, such as when a fire truck is owned by a city.
Socialism is not when the city owns stuff either…
socialism is when the principal mode of production is owned by the workers.
Socialism is not when the city owns stuff either…
No, but it includes the fire department which is when the city owns fire trucks and pays firefighters to fight fires.
State ownership is not the same thing as collective ownership, especially when we’re talking about a bourgeois state.
If a king rides through a village and says, “I really like the views around here. Seize the land for the state and kick out all the peasants so that I can come here without having to see them spoiling the view.” Is that “collective ownership” because the land is now held by the state? Is that “socialism?”
Treating state ownership and collective ownership as equivalent is just “socialism is when the government does stuff” with extra steps.
State ownership is not the same thing as collective ownership
No, and yet both can be examples of socialism. As in, when the city owns a fire department which is paid for by city taxes and available to help anybody in the city any time there’s a fire.
I don’t! They only show up to my house when there’s a fire! They bring bad juju, and fire!
oooh look it’s the truth
commies look look - this is why you are hated and your recent terrorist supporting populist/authoritarian fantasies are just making it worse!
What
The Zionist is mad
All major media outlets are fascist mouthpieces
Sweet
“Means of building collective power”. That’s the right thing to communicate, My take is we need a new word that’s not socialism, communism etc because those words have lost concrete meaning, similar to globalism and neoliberalism no one knows what they mean anymore because they’ve been targeted, abused, redefined and vilified.
People have knee-jerk reactions to those words.
I think basically stop denonising unions. I’ve been hesitant to join mine, as I don’t want to be seen as a trouble maker. Funnily I’ve already received my ‘last promotion’ at 56. I could shit on the marble floor and not get sacked (because vital skills). However, simply displaying solidarity with my younger colleagues would be deemed ‘offensive’. Two more years and nearing retirement, I think I’ll let rip
Yeah… most people in my country don’t have a union available, and there are no prospects for creating one in the near future. I don’t mean any offense myself, but just having access to a union and not joining it is… an interesting choice from my perspective.
A cooperative economy, co-ops in general, is the answer in my opinion. Anarchists and communists are mostly on board, if only seeing them as stepping stones towards larger goals. Being a form of socialism, socialists are on board. While being stateless and still relying on markets they may be able to sway conservatives. Their economic proof of success already might convince liberals. And who doesn’t want democracy in their workplace?
I tried that in a group of people the other day. I got a resounding “Nah, I’m good”
What do you do when everyone is happy to die? Because right now my plan is “try my damned best to make sure these dipshits don’t take me down with them”
in the OG Matrix: Cypher isn’t evil because he betrays everyone and gets some people killed, which is undoubtedly an evil act. No, Cypher is inherently evil because he not only doesn’t care, but he actively chooses ignorance. He CHOOSES to go back to sleep. This is the avg American. They chose ignorance because they WANT to be mesmerized and lied to, Americans enjoy and celebrate it. IGNORANCE IS BLISS.
The opinions shared about socialism in this thread prove you right, unfortunately.
Whenever I see posts about “rebelling” and “standing up” I just think…are you assuming that the vast majority of people in this country ARE NOT okay with their lives? I mean, that’s the only way a true “rebellion” will ever occur. And despite what liberals and the Left say, most Americans are content with their lives.
“Parasitic pedophile class” is a lot of words to just say “conservatives”.
The 1%
Conservatives are the footsoldiers of the 1% and are in complete agreement with them on pretty much every topic. Conservatives see themselves as temporarily embarassed billionaires.
Conservatives are the reason for our wealth inequality. If not for conservatives, the normal people would be able to regulate the hoarding of wealth and the behavior of the 1%. Conservatives are the sole reason laws do not apply to the wealthy.
Everybody’s hooked on communism.
But what about anarchism?
A top priority for me is the people who do stuff benefit from that stuff, instead of some removed jerks.
Along side health care, food, shelter, an environment that’s sustainable for human life.
I’m not familiar with anarchism’s solutions to these things.
Anarchism is an assured destruction of the Social Contract. People, without guidance, are more horrible.
You know anarchism doesn’t just mean ‘anything goes’, right?
“No rulers” doesn’t mean “no rules.”
But it does mean nobody to enforce the rules, which means no rules.
No it doesn’t.
Yes it does.
Oh wow. How very convincing. I guess you got me.
My argument was just as high quality as yours.
Lol read a book, my god
Perhaps you should do more than just read a book and look at the real world?
No it doesn’t, name one anarchist society where this was an issue in the real world.
https://anarwiki.org/wiki/List_of_Anarchist_Societies
point to them here
And the largest one in that list is…? And the longest lasting is…? Just because you can balance a knife on its tip doesn’t mean that that’s a stable configuration, and if anarchism is not stable, why bother talking about it?
That’s a different point, we can move onto that one next if you’d like, first i’d like you to concede your previous one.
simply admit what you said has never happened in the real world, and anarchism doesn’t mean no rules, it means no rulers.
Unless you have an example where that happened on the list, where that was the reason for the collapse.
Decades of anthropological evidence say otherwise. Read Graeber’s works on the subject. They are incredibly enlightening.
Anarchy only helps those privileged enough to have the means to defend what they have with violence.
Anarchy means the sick, disabled, poor, minorities, etc are thrown to the wolves, and expected to defend themselves with less capability and resources than the majority.
Sure, you might argue family units or communities might band together and take care of each other, but they probably need some rules to make that equitable since not everyone will agree, and- oops we made government again.
Sips fox news brand coolaid
That’s not how anarchism works.
But it is kind of how humans work. Have you met humans?
Then, with that logic, none of the social systems work whether it’s capitalism, communism, anarchism, socialism, etc.
I have visited wikipedia. So you mean the anarchy that is “without hierarchy or authority” but not complete chaos?
I guess I’m unclear how you manage that without it devolving into chaos though. Like corporations constantly prove that if we don’t have a law against it they’d just sell humans. I dunno how you manage to make an equitable society without some kind of rules and enforcement of said rules, when there will always be bad actors.
It’s a more complex concept than I assumed, but I struggle to conceptualize what that kind of system actually looks like.
Yes. Sort of.
To be honest, I think even I need more education on the topic. But I think it’s more like societies form organically. People pick roles and contribute to society as needed instead of doing a job just because you need to pay the rent.
And it doesn’t mean there’s an absence of rules or laws. And commerce would still function but there would be a specific need for it. And it wouldn’t be just for profit. So that removed a lot of incentive to do bad things.
That’s the thing, anarchism doesn’t work.
Just like communism and socialism doesn’t work?
Because capitalism is a violent, agressive system that keep sabotaging them for profit.
Capitalism is the reason why everything is shit and why the masses can’t have any form of real democratic power.
Socialism definitely can work, just look at China or Cuba.
Of course!
Something that works is something that can’t be “sabotaged” by a better system.
Capitalism works, but 100% capitalism doesn’t. Socialism works, but not 100% socialism. If you can imagine less than 100% anarchism, then that works too – basically people having a certain amount of autonomy, but not 100% autonomy.
Balance is key. People can’t be 100% under the thumb of the government or life isn’t worth living. But, people also can’t be 100% free to do anything they want without considering other people because that leads to chaos and death. You can’t have absolutely everything being privately owned for someone’s profit, because that’s just awful, but you also can’t have no private ownership of the means of production either. A successful system is a mix.
Capitalism isn’t the reason why everything is shit. That’s the kind of argument a 6 year old would make. Everything was shit long before Capitalism came around. When feudalism / manorialism was the dominant economic system, people weren’t allowed to leave the land where they were born because legally they were tied to the land and owed their labour to their landlord until they died. No capitalism there, but things were awful shitty.
The problem is extreme power inequality and wealth inequality. The theorists who promoted capitalism liked it because they thought that it would lead to less wealth and power inequality than feudalism. They thought that as long as the government enforced laws to ensure there was fair competition, there wouldn’t be a ruling class of capital owners who would hold all the power. Anybody could start their own business and compete against existing businesses. If they had a better idea, or a better product, or a more efficient process, they’d be rewarded with more sales, and that would displace the existing business. But, of course, the wealthy and powerful managed to corrupt the system so that those laws were not being enforced and the wealthy and powerful were able to eliminate competition and effectively become feudal lords again.
Something that works is something that can’t be “sabotaged” by a better system.
I stopped reading here.
Calling capitalism a “better system” is a fucking joke. The system can’t work without exploiting people, authoritarianism, and exploiting every resource until there’s nothing left but a burnt empty husk of a planet.
I stopped reading here.
I stopped reading here. If you’re not going to actually engage with what I wrote, then why should I bother?
I’ve been reading all of your arguments in this thread and you seem to be a very confident person who doesn’t know anything.
Tell me why a society where all businesses were legally required to have democratic institutions that make them run by the worker will be “under the thumb of the government” or “not worth living”
Idealistic and naive, in my view. Anarchists have never explained how we get from here to the global classless, stateless, moneyless society that both communists and anarchists wish to achieve, given the context of capitalist power and reaction — at least no explanation that makes sense to me.
I would be happy to be proven wrong though, as I truly believe that both groups want the same outcome.
That’s fair
The two are not mutually exclusive
The amount of people who are completely ignorant about socialism and communism in this thread is evidence that the first sentence of this tweet is true, and that it was super effective.
How does one connect with one’s humanity?
How does one connect with one’s community, especially if somebody has to start?
Maybe some voluntary work? That should tick both boxes
Doesn’t really exist here, there’s work that most people drive to from 30+ minutes away and church which I refuse to go to for obvious reasons. Everything closes at 10 including on the weekends, there’s a lot of lot of America that’s like this, I’ve tried moving, didn’t help.
Oh, that’s sad to hear. I live in Germany in a relatively small town (~50k population). I work in a much larger town but I have a lot of remote work from home. In my home town are at least 10 places where I could volunteer and get there by walking or bike.
I actually do at a place where I try to teach some older folks a bit about computers.
However, there’s also an animal shelter, voluntary fire fighters, a second hand shop that donates the income for disabled children, a nature preservation station and probably a bunch more.
I actually considered both animal shelter and vfd, animal shelter wasn’t interested and it would cost around $600 to get started for fire department, yes cost. Been so bored I’d do yardwork for free but once again equipment cost etc, plus everyone is convinced you’re out to murder them.
I see. Maybe you can do something in line with your professional work? E.g. if you work with computers you could also help people in the neighborhood. Especially older people often need help.
Another thing I just remembered nearby are repair cafes, I’m not good with electronics so it’s not for me but maybe it’s something for you? Also we have people that help immigrants with bureaucracy, translation or just integration into society (eg. local sports clubs)
Anyways, don’t pressure yourself into something. Just keep your ears open, maybe something pops up.
Grab a bucket and pick up trash along your street. Take the old lady’s trash out. Paint something that’s worn out (with permission where appropriate). Find the ugliest yard in the neighborhood and offer to cut some of it back or just clean up an abandoned yard or park. Landscaping goes exponentially faster with power tools, but a hand pruner, hand saw, and cheap weed whacker can do a lot.
On a restaurant supply site, or maybe even just ask a local restaurant, aquire a quantity of take out containers. Make a large batch of inexpensive food, chicken and rice is a good one. If you have a little extra cash grab a huge bag of Halloween candy. Drive to your nearest economically depressed area, and look for someone outside. Offer them food. If they say no, ask if they know anyone that could use a meal. The food will be gone quickly. Don’t means test, just give. It feels pretty good.
Volunteer work
I mean, sure, they made an effort to make people hate all forms of tax and welfare, but the USSR and China have done a fantastic job of making you hate the words socialism and communism.
Hell, even the nazis used the moniker of National Socialists.
Yeah I’d say there might be a bigger problem with leftists trying to associate things like healthcare programs with the word socialism that’s holding things back.
Kinda disconnected from reality when you’re saying we should do X because X is something failed systems have done. Might be more successful to say we should do X because X is good and it won’t make us into a failed state.
Yeah socialism is going to make the US fail, it’s totally not currently failing rn… LOL
Maybe we should consider looking at what has actually worked instead of debating between which failed system to implement? There’s more options than just laissez faire capitalism and socialism ya know.
I think failed is a loaded term you’re using here. But more important to me than labels is that I believe in free healthcare, housing, food and education. Lots of countries do that already or at least a good portion of those, and the US doesn’t.
Yeah, we have a phobia around the word socialism. Probably part of why the DSA won’t ever be more than a small minority, even if they DO have the right idea about alot of things (a few things they’re really not right on though - like abolition of private property as the means of production just will never fly here and it’s not clear to me that’s a good idea anyway). But maybe we can take the best of socialism and repackage it in a way that’s palatable. Make it into a sort of socialism with American characteristics, as the Chinese might say. In alot of ways, it’s really just an updated version of the Progressive movement of the late 1800’s/early 1900’s.
Cuba Vietnam Laos and North Korea currently.
Also Cambodia and Yugoslavia.
It’s actually every country that tried socialism…
Also China is a hybrid system with a thriving free market and many extremely powerful and wealthy mega corporations.
What’s bad about Cuba that isn’t caused by the US embargo?
If China’s plans for Myanmar keep going well then them soon, too. I feel like China is playing them like a slot machine: arming a coup repeatedly until it ends up the way they want.
It’s actually every country that tried socialism…
The US tried socialism. The US is, in fact, still partially socialist.
No, it is not. Socialism is an economic system in which the workers, collectively, control the means of production. That is fundamentally different from simply having government programs that provide services or benefits to the public.
A government operating fire departments, libraries, police departments, public schools, healthcare programs, infrastructure, labor protections, or other services that benefit the general population is not inherently practicing socialism. Those are social programs or public services. They can exist under capitalism, socialism, mixed economies, monarchies, democracies, and virtually any other form of government.
I think one of the most misunderstood words in the English language is “social.” We have social programs, social services, social policy, social democracy, socialism, and social welfare, and despite the shared root, these terms do not mean the same thing.
People constantly conflate “the government does something that benefits society” with “socialism.” That is simply incorrect. A government providing a public service does not, by itself, change the underlying economic system.
You can support or oppose a particular social program on its own merits without pretending that the program is inherently socialist. Government action and socialism are not synonymous.
A system doesn’t have to be 100% socialist to have socialist elements. A city-owned fire department is a socialist element of a system. The fire trucks are collectively owned and controlled by the people via the government. That meets the definition of socialism.
A person who owns knitting needles and uses them to make scarves he sells is a capitalist element of a system. That person privately owns the means of production.
Capitalism and socialism have always existed in a mixed system. In a 100% capitalist system, every “means of production” would have to be in private hands. That would mean that you couldn’t have a government-owned fire department, all firefighting equipment, and the labour of firefighters, etc. would have to be privately owned and operated by independent for-profit firefighting companies. In a 100% socialist system, nobody could own knitting needles – or at least couldn’t sell any knitting they did using those knitting needles because that would turn the knitting needles from a personal possession to a piece of capital equipment, which would therefore have to be collectively owned.
The USSR at various times tried to go 100% socialist, but it was a disaster. They had to at least allow small elements of capitalism in their socialist / communist system, just as ramping up capitalism to 100% never works either.
We currently live in a mixed socialist / capitalist system in which some “means of production” are collectively owned and controlled by the people via the government, and others are privately owned and operated. One way in which the USA is different from the UK is that in the UK the means of production associated with healthcare are owned and operated by the people via the government (socialist healthcare) whereas in the USA they’re privately owned and operated (capitalist healthcare).
*the limited and distorted information that the West feeds you about the USSR and China have done a fantastic job of making you hate the words socialism and communism.
FTFY
lmfao
Russia historians citing USSR internal records are all western lies?
I would have to know what exactly you are talking about to respond effectively, but largely yes, internal USSR records support the idea that anti-communist narratives are largely distorted or fabricated. Almost everything you think you know about the purges, the Moscow trials, the famines, the gulags, Soviet “authoritarianism,” and almost everything other talking point you can bring up falls into this category. And the things that aren’t distorted or fabricated are taken so far out of context as to make them unexplainable.
The USSR wasn’t perfect, it did some inexcusable things. But the common narrative is almost comically misrepresentative, especially considering the much much worse things that contemporary capitalist nations were doing.
LMFAO
Oh man, I apologize, I didn’t realize your ideal world meant a surveillance state totallitarian dictatorship which abducted and killed people in the night, starved the population, and put millions to work in camps until they were near dying.
You should have started with how you actually support those things instead of saying simply “I think everything was great” which merely implied an ignorance of the bad things.
The ignorance is yours, my friend. And unfortunately you are proving OP was correct.
Oh man a literal red fascist just hit me with that “no u”
The fact that you think there can be red fascists further proves your ignorance. Communism and Fascism are diametrically opposed ideologies.
I bugged out 20 years ago and that community you refer to took alll they could from me and kicked me to the curb.
Im gonna need appologies and damages compensated before i believe in society again.
Im not holding my breath.
And yet you need twitter to get your message out. Irony in that…
americans can’t rebel.
that money has also been used to make them weak, subservient and pacified.
Best they can do is vote harder and whine
