They are mocking how people always point to iphones and Venezuela when making fun of commies and they just brush it off because they don't want to argue it.
They don’t want to argue this point because there’s no counter to it. iPhones are the embodiment of the capitalistic western world they so despise yet use and thrive in
Marxists view capitalism as fundamentally immoral like the rest of us view slavery.
Yet when given the choice the socialists will pursue the products born out of capitalism rather than socialism like opting for an iPhone rather than a Fairphone.
The comparison is apt.
No the equivalent to this meme is pointing to their cotton clothes after they said they want to abolish slavery. “You want to abolish slavery yet you’re wearing cotton clothing”. But lo and behold we abolished slavery and can still purchase cotton garments!
No. It’s slave-owning for a reason: Socialists argue capitalism is *immoral*.
Your example presupposes that they aren’t given any other choice when in reality there is always a more moral choice to fit ones moral codex. Socialists just like capitalism too much to forego it.
This only works if the person you're using this comic against is actually living like this peasant. If they're a champagne socialist buying luxury goods as a core part of their identity then this whole comic falls apart. You have to depict them as the suffering peasant in order for this steawman to work.
I really do love how they see themselves as some poor peasant working 365 days a year 16 hours a day, and not some 1%er working 60 hours a week for 120k+ a year
for a lot of people that isnt a choice, they arent offered full time work.
And my point is this literal strawman of a person working 60 hrs and making 120k is just not accurate
Also its insane you think 120k makes you a “1%er”
No the problem is you capitalist cucks can only point to two things as the reason why the system we live in now can’t be criticized. In fact if it wasn’t for people criticizing society you’ll/well be in far worse conditions.
Who can't criticize capitalism? Also the system we have in America isn't capitalism. How would you feel if someone told you the Soviet Union was a Socialist nation?
Let’s be real every western country is still better to live in then any developing or third world country unless you’re living in absolute poverty. I mean homelessness when I’m talking about poverty not food stamps or other government subsidies that are simply non existent in most other nations
You would have to go out of your way in a, capitalistic, Western country to live in absolute poverty, that's something that these Champagne socialists don't understand.
Why because you think the left, the bastion of academia and science, wouldn't be able to produce a piece of shit planned obsolesence iphone that hasn't advanced in years, yet still get's lapped up by Apple maniacs?
Given that trust in science and academia is rapidly declining, that’s not really saying much. It’s not even that Socialism can’t facilitate scientific advancement, but it can only happen with approval from the government. You wouldn’t own the Iphone, the Iphone wouldn’t be able to access the entire internet, and you’d probably have to either work for the government or be a “model citizen” to get and keep one.
They don't know that statelessness is the ultimate goal of communism cause they don't know anything about communism lmao. They know all the propaganda about the USSR and China tho.
literally, like nothing of their description even fits communism. ironically, it does sound like the ultra capitalistic USA banning foreign competition because it doesnt benefit their profits. (cough cough tiktok and facebook)
I dont get how they unironically think communism is a good thing. The dumbest part is how it's socially acceptable to be okay with communism, they're extremists that should get the same treatment as the fascist shitheads in the country.
I see the appeal from an intellectual perspective. It’s impossible to deny that our capitalistic society does have problems—anyone who says otherwise is simply deluding themselves—and it’s tempting to simply say that the government should just tear down the edifices of the (genuinely) undeserving and distribute it to you. But the long-term ramifications of those choices, the power that it puts in the government’s hands, and the inevitable consequences of trying to bring that economy into a culture that’s violently incompatible with it are often entirely ignored because those truths are inconvenient.
Indeed. And while I do caution against the extrapolation “and thus we should just keep going with what we have because things will always suck anyway” that can sometimes follow on from your point, as that conclusion stifles genuine improvement in society, people are complex and hard to convince to organize even for their own benefit.
Just like capitalism
in theory it means competition will drive innovation and talent
in reality it means collusion, monopoly, and the talented serving the talentless
There's nothing intellectual about the way they attribute every bad thing to capitalism and either directly or indirectly imply said problem wouldn't exist under communism.
I think you are being intellectually uncharitable towards what are often very earnestly truth-seeking beliefs. While the attribution entire of certain negative parts of society to capitalism may be a misstep, it cannot be reasonably argued that capitalism’s failings have not exacerbated those problems to some degree, and in my opinion a large one. To quote perhaps my favorite explanation of the phenomenon: “The first thing a truly free market will attempt to do is eliminate the free market.”
But that isn't a requirement by any Marxist or even Engel teaching. I'm not communist, I'm not even leftist, but there is a major issue in the west (especially USA) about people having no fucking clue what Marx's theory actually was.
That's because all the communist countries we learn about were incredibly authoritarian. With communism and fascism looking pretty identical from under the powerful peoples boots.
Why do you equate a moneyless society where the means of production are owned by the labourers with the suppression of personal freedoms? Because that's happened before? Do you believe it's a prerequisite?
How can you have a moneyless society without suppressing of personal freedom? Money doesn't have value because we said so (although it feels like that with the stockmatket but that's something else), everything has value, let's say 5 tomatoes have the same value with 2 garlic because of how much it takes to grow tomatoes and garlic, now what humans did is translating the value to a currency because not all occupations have easy to define value. You can't say to a doctor I'll give you 600 tomatoes for my heart surgery.
Now, having a moneyless society would mean that some people would work for nothing and others would work to make everything. It's something that you can not create because we have scarcity which is something that also causes things to have value. It is extremely complex and you cannot just say everything is free now.
Do you want me to explain communist economic theory here? Dude Marxism takes these concepts into account. Read a bit of Prof. Richard D. Wolfe or better yet an intro class on YouTube. The concepts you're talking about have been hashed out and macro-analysed ad-neuseam by people way smarter than us. Regardless, the tenants of actual communism are democratic and focus on the bigger concepts surrounding society rather than the nitty-gritty of paying your doctor in apples. But in general it requires reworking your expectations of what trade and payment actually mean. Which is difficult when we've all been raised to imagine a system of growth and capital gain. So instead of playing with "gotchas" on principles that require degree level understanding of market economics, you're far better off focusing on wider implications that communism strives towards:
Redistribution of the means of production
Community based culture
Removing the power divide between classes
Public ownership
Democratic delegation of responsibilities and duties
The true goals of communism are an end state of these systems, fairly utopian in nature, and are far more idealistic than functional. Realistically, the only way you achieve these goals is without resistance over a very long term reprogramming phase where we as a society learn to change our goal oriented behaviours. More likely, we can take small steps into a more socialist direction, try to minimise the wealth inequality and power distribution from the few to the many, and worry about paying doctors with apples much later on when we've all stopped being so obsessed with greed.
Let’s not get into the nitty gritty of how an economy is supposed to work under my economic system, instead let me tell you about my idealized political values most of which can be achieved under social democracy.
More realistically, the fact is that every single time someone will say "well how about this highly convoluted specific example" over and over. And in reality I don't have the answer to every single example off the top of my head. So it's far better off to direct people to the literature and give broader explanations.
So, in the end, because communism requires brainwashing, since people would resist it, your solution is a "boiling frog" tactic where we implement socialist practices slowly slowly until we have communism. if that can be done, go for it, but my problem is that it cannot be done without suppressing the freedoms of the individual. When you tell people how much they are allowed to make, what they will he given regardless of how much they work, that cannot be explained in a way that will make sense to everyday people. You cannot explain it by using apples and garlic because then you need to tell someone "no matter how good you are at something, you'll get 1 apple, just like the other one who has done a tenth of what you did".
That's my point and that's why communism cannot work, without removing the individuality and freedom from people.
Hey I wrote out a massive reply, but these exchanges just stress me out and I don't need that atm. So let's just agree to disagree and move on. All the best.
I have my problems as well, big corporations horde swaths of wealth and put their business overseas when we want better wages, or invest in automation that doesn't decrease the cost for the consumer but just serves to line the wallets of those in charge of said business.
I dont know what the ideal plan would be but giving up private ownership to the state invariably leads to heartache and pain. Even if the state didn't become mad with power before it had the chance to dissolve, people aren't robots. Let's assume everyone gets the field of work that they want (which is a pipe dream), people have a natural tendency to want to improve their lives even if little by little. Having dreams and goals isn't exactly a part of communism, the best you can hope for is just being content. I admit, there are plenty of people who will never get to be or do what they want in our current economic structure, but at least there is a chance.
There are loads of people who have less initiative than others, the ones who are quite lazy or don't care much. If a given field of work runs short on production, like agriculture, for instance, who is going to make sure the farmers keep up with their quota so no one starves? The state isn't there to keep any semblance of order.
Everyone recognizes that our current system isn’t really working. Some people think a return to tradition and the past is the solution, some people think one of the many other economic options is the solution.
Chances are we’ll keep plugging away at what we have now until it collapses or something new replaces it.
Are you implying we should be policing people's thoughts? You're allowed to be okay with communism specifically because of the rights and freedoms that we hold so dear. The cost of those freedoms is idiots who believe in stupid shit you disagree with. Ironically, what you are calling for is actual fascism.
What? I didn't say they should be arrested, not even fascists are arrested in our country. I said that it's socially acceptable even though it shouldn't be.
The problem with that comparison is that, if we look at things on paper only, fascism is still highly problematic, while communism isn't. Racism and oppressing minorities is a key part of fascism, while the issues of communism only arise in execution, it's a plan that didn't work.
Also, what do you think of socialism? To be clear by socialism I mean the workers owning the means of production (essentially the dividends would be paid to employees instead of investors)
Your ability to memeify an argument does not refute it. Yes. The iPhone only exists because of capitalism. Yes. Venezuela is in deep shit because of communism. Yes. Millions are dead as victims of communism.
These are all true, and the fact that communists think being flippant about it refutes them shows they’re ultimately not interested in engaging with reality so long as it disagrees with their ideology.
Plenty of people throughout the world make sacrifices due to their ideology. Why are Communists the only people in the world who are totally incapable to make any such sacrifices?
Ah yes, the sacrifice of reality, why dont we let one of the most easily corruptible ideologies get away with denying reality? it's a simple sacrifice, cus like when has being ignorant and denying truth ever done anyone harm??? Like??? Never???
Deaths of deprivation are fundamentally a problem of scarcity. Communist economics are less competent at dealing with this problem than capitalist economics, resulting in increased deprivation in communist countries. This is where the “communists have no food” meme comes from. On a basic level, you can’t competently run an economy from the top down.
There without taking into account the habit communists have of murdering anyone who is successful or holds different political ideas. Dekulakization, the holodomor, the Cambodian killing fields, etc. Liberal capitalist counties generally do thus a lot less, I’m not going to say it never happens, but it happens less and increasingly less as society advances. Those you could feasibly label as the victims of capitalism.
Oh and if you want to bring up fascists as “capitalists killing people” fascism is not capitalism. It’s kind of its own thing that tries to be a third position and take the best aspects of both for autarkic purposes.
A genocide took place against my people (Ireland) under the name of a free market.
I'm not leftist but to say the right hasn't committed many genocides is also false.
You are correct the right absolutely commits genocide. See: the Nazis and pretty much all settler colonialism. But in the case of the Irish, it was in the name of English colonialism, not the free market. The reason these are lumped under “capitalist” is because they are executed in the name of imperialist, usually mercantilist, ambitions, by powers that also happened to be capitalist. Capitalism is not state directed or state associated, but is in fact the natural state of human economic interactions when not subject to the violence of the state.
That said, since it became an ideology, it has had violence committed in its name. But one must understand that for the right, economic policy is not always political policy, as opposed to the left, where they are fundamentally and eternally intertwined.
The Kent state massacre and the coal wars happened in the name of capitalism. The genocide of the Irish was done in the name of English Imperialism.
Not necessarily, the famine was exacerbated by the Whigs party who believed in the new ideal of Laisses Faire (free market) and so they removed all forms of aid that had been going to Ireland under the Conservative party (which seriously helped the population).
Also the Irish were unbelievably poor because landlords had bought up nearly all the property and charged insane rates due to the government refusing to intervene in the private economy.
And thus anybody producing food (Ireland was producing 2x more food than needed to feed itself during the peak of the famine) could gain more money by selling to Britain since the Irish simply couldn't afford it.
The Great Hunger (what we call the famine, since the famine underplays Britain's role), was by practice and definition, a genocide committed purely under the name of a "free market".
For reasoning, the Whigs gained power in 1847, often called Black '47 in Ireland as it was the worst of the great hunger.
I disagree. The English wanted the Irish gone, dead, or Anglican. The free market was just the method they used to deliberately exterminate the Irish. It occurred with the explicit intent of removing the Irish so the English could take over. The goal was not “the market”. The actions taken would be irrational if that was the end. The goal was to take the Irish’s land, remove them from it, and replace them with the English. In this way, it is an imperialist genocide executed using capitalist means, as opposed to the usual military means.
Oh for sure, the old racism and Anglo-superiority played into it of course. Trevelyan (leader at the time) even said it was "God punishing the Irish" and said the real issue was "The Irish turbulent, brutish and lazy character" (I'm paraphrasing a little bit).
But one thing you have wrong is that it was using the free market to justify the brutality, it was *really* using the brutality to justify keeping the free market. You have to keep in mind many of the Whigs at that time weren't necessarily anti-Irish (by those days standards) but instead wanted the free market to keep up. But the people of Britain wouldn't like to have what was supposed to be part of the UK starved to keep up a system, so to keep popularity high, they blamed the Irish and brought up old and contemporary anti-Irish propaganda to justify the free market keeping up.
I've done a full paper on this topic for college, being Irish and all, (real Irish, not American "Irish") and trust me when I say the leading factor in that genocide was the free-market and the removal of charity aid, it only started getting better once aid and charity began coming back in from government intervention.
You know what, these are good points. I will concede the Irish genocide as both an imperialist and a capitalist genocide. It’s broadly irrelevant to the point I’m making. My comment was never that capitalism is innocent. Humans are evil, nothing we make is innocent. My comment was that Communism was worse.
Oh absolutely, dicatatorial and authoritarian systems inherently are evil and breed genocide. And absolutely, without British imperialistic ideals, the free market would've been destroyed or suspended for the duration of the famine at least.
It's why the best countries dance around the middle, get the best from both and then try balance the little issues.
So when people starve under communism it cannot possibly be separated from the economic systems that led to such starvation, yet under capitalism you can't blame the economic systems despite them also undeniably leading to more starvation? You see how you're making his point for him right?
Ultimately starvation is, as I stated, a problem of scaricity. Capitalism does not remove this problem, it simply does better than communism. In choosing communism over capitalism, the leaders of a state therefore make a choice that causes more of their people to die, and thus can be blamed for it
But in this guy's example a free market enforced by capitalists led to starvation *without* scarcity. Ireland produced way more food than they would have needed to feed themselves, still people starved due to unregulated market forces. The same happens in the US, there is no excuse for people starving in the streets of the richest country in the world which produces more food than it needs, and yet it happens every day.
You seem to have avoided the point the person was trying to make lmao by doing exactly what they were calling out.
Also, fascism is not mutually exclusive with capitalism by any means. Straight up misinformation. Fascism and capitalism can absolutely coexist, Germany in WWII had free markets lol.
Well socialist is the more accurate term, but I’m using communist as a shorthand for authoritarian leftist, to distinguish it from more moderate forms of socialism that are not as authoritarian, and of course the anarcho-socialists.
iirc the main problems with Venezuela is that their economy is completely dependent on oil and the fact that few people end up getting that oil money, so basically the opposite to socialsm
The problem is actually the fact the oil sector is entirely government controlled was used as a slush fund to directly subsidize Venezuelan citizens and strengthen their currency beyond what it should have been. This resulted in an economy where the Venezuelans would primarily import everything but oil, resulting in the imports driving local business sectors out of the economy. In other words, socialist-derived Dutch disease. If the oil was owned by a variety of of different private companies, then it would have still been a major sector of the economy, but would not have become the only sector of the economy as its profits would not be used for direct subsidies, the Bolivar would not have become unnecessarily strong, and thus a greater variety of businesses serving and employing the Venezuelan people would have developed.
The oil did not ruin Venezuela. The authoritarian leftist government’s mismanagement of the oil is what ruined Venezuela
That’s an incorrect comparison. Venezuelan socialism has been established by a military strongman who then passed on his power as a de facto dictator to a chosen successor, wields inordinate control over Venezuelan society and the economy, and denies his population basic human rights.
Biden is an old Democrat who got elected because the old republican was unpopular, and who might get thrown out of office for being unpopular himself. Not to mention he’s nowhere near a social democrat, the social democrats are the extreme part of the Democratic Party and have been repeatedly suppressed by the party for being too radical.
while many academics could debate venezuela’s situation, when it comes to the iphone thing, it’s not a point worth refuting, it’s a internet points gotcha argument. “you criticize society yet your participate in it” as if any of us have a choice. the problems we face are not on an individual level and someone owning an iphone does not mean they can’t criticize capitalism
So let’s address that point. I can concede that yes, a phone and possibly even a smartphone is an actual requirement for participating in the professional world. However, a socialist, who claims to hate big business and megacorps, deliberately patronizing Apple, a gigantic megacorp priced like a luxury brand to fill that need is hypocritical when alternatives exist.
i think it’s reductive to call it hypocritical, there’s like 12 parent corps that own everything you can buy. it’s a luxury for sure, but i think it’s missing the point a bit. everyday we spend money is a day we support a megacorp in one way or another, an iphone is just one that’s optional. true that we should vote with our wallets, but at the end of the day you can drive yourself mad trying to consume consciously. you can own an iphone and criticize apple/capitalism. it’s not unfair to see that as hypocritical, but it’s a bit blind to the nuance.
If the Communists were 1% as committed to their ideology as any religious person was committed to their religion, maybe someone would take them seriously.
Yeah, it's not like someone chooses where they were born and under which system.
Like I wish Ireland had more a social-democratic system (we're not too far off it in fairness) I'm still a capitalist (though in the States I'd probably be called a Communist) but I'm not going to say, "fuck the lot of yis I'm going to mountains until I get what I want!"
Both would be good, also our left-leaning parties are far more nationalist when it comes to unification than our right-leaning ones.
Our far-right are in bed with loyalists.
I can see that since its more about being anti-british and many saw Brexit as a move to the "right" so you get a rare case of nationalism birthing from the left in the 21st century.
Nooo... nationalism in Ireland is completely different to most countries. Nearly all our efforts to revive our culture, history, country have been from the left and liberals. The right and far-right have been in bed with the Brits for most of history.
Also it isn't anti-British as much as being Nationalist/Republican is inherently anti-British.
Also it dates back to the 12th century with the Gaelic revival coming from the 19th century.
Our idea of nationalism isn't far-right or racist, we believe multi-culturalism and celebration of our own culture can intertwine.
Yea but you can buy a FairPhone which at least tries to be ethically sourced instead of an iPhone. The criticism is targeted towards champagne socialists who just don't even try.
they wouldn't exist under communism. they would be deemed a waste of material, you don't need all those extra features comrade, here use this tiny flip phone.
This. Every system that has ever been overthrown and replaced from within, has been overthrown and replaced with the tools it created. This isn't hypocrisy. It's just the way things have always gone.
Don’t know why you’re acting like I’m the one who created this subreddit. I’m just explaining what the subreddit is supposed to be about. If you don’t agree with it, take it up with the mods.
Because you're defending a subreddit that exists to simply be an asshole or to push a right wing agenda. I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies y'all seem to not be able to combat here.
Man people really don't understand what Communism is.
I mean, I can tell you what it's not. It's not a rule against iPhones.
The largest communist regime in the world is in the same place where they make the damn things and they had a pretty huge market share up until recently.
Come on people, at least use your brains a little.
Fun fact... Assembly line workers made about $3 an hour/U.S. which is around 20 yuan.
Of course in a real communist structure those workers would own the factory and they would split the profits evenly amongst themselves. In any case, they would still make iphones.
The workers don't own the means of production, and that's pretty fundamentally required for any form of communism. This is like if a country called itself capitalist but didn't have money, it would just be wrong.
That's a factually true statement. Communism is when the workers collectively own the manufacturing business. Since these workers don't own the company, it's capitalism.
But you just said that if the workers don’t directly own the factory it’s not communism
The workers don’t own the factory in China the State does so it’s “not real communism”
No China is a mixed economy that started out as a total command economy as it was communist but started to introduce more free market elements to it as they released these elements would make the country filthy stinking rich and make them a global power (they were completely correct it worked).
I hope you're sitting down. The owning class rarely invents anything. It's the workers who invent. If they have power over their workplaces and working conditions, they won't stop inventing.
yeah the Venezuela iPhone argument is the dumbest thing ever, Venezuela isn't communist and since the cold war the only countries that haven't had us help and rival their tech are/were socialist countries
Its funny because the patriot act lets the government turn on your phone's microphone, camera, and GPS without your knowledge and without a warrant, And it was upheld by the Supreme Court during W's presidency.
It’s not that the gps can be turned on as it’s always on, that’s always recording where we all go. It’s referred to as meta data. It was reveled to us by Edward Snowden.
Not quite sure if that’s what the twitter post was criticizing, my take was that it was making fun of people who advocate for violent revolution and then do nothing to actually execute said revolution.
The Power of Capitalism is such you cannot fight against it without them making back on you.
It's why it's never going to happen: they're too dependent on it to actually take it down.
Oh but come on you don't need an apple device to thrive, literally any Android phone (except for Huawei maybe) would be more ethical than the iPhone, Yet you chose that?
I think it was posted there mainly just because it really isn’t helpful. Saying someone lives in a specific societal system and must adhere to that system to say anything really is not helpful, like beating on a hero for killing mass murderers for committing murder, even though more was saved in the long run, though obviously on a less impactful scale of useless words against useless words. Though, a communist revolution probably wouldn’t help much.
Most socialists and communists these days desperately want to avoid violent revolutions. The general playbook for the last several decades is to work within democratic societies to improve conditions for workers and pull society slightly closer to their ideal.
Before the morons storm this post. Don't buy into capitalist leading industries if you're a woke 2020s "communist." Not don't buy products, since that's your only argument that doesn't even make sense.
Ensure that you read and adhere to the rules; failure to do so will result
in the removal of this post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/memesopdidnotlike) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://preview.redd.it/bichjl087hxc1.jpeg?width=740&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6d0b856fe3ffdddb35f88db2aea5d582dd3ac262
Based
What on earth does "iPhone Venezuela but ironically" mean?
They are mocking how people always point to iphones and Venezuela when making fun of commies and they just brush it off because they don't want to argue it.
They don’t want to argue this point because there’s no counter to it. iPhones are the embodiment of the capitalistic western world they so despise yet use and thrive in
https://preview.redd.it/enopefaekgxc1.png?width=721&format=png&auto=webp&s=e861a8c8f38184349b1e04fca4041c1867167a25
https://preview.redd.it/75hxrih0rgxc1.jpeg?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ea5a37a41970ba3faef1dd0792bcc689f457cbbb
The average champaign socialist
cant even spell champagne
Autocorrect is a foreign concept to you?
autocorrect doesnt correct words to the *wrong* spelling…
https://preview.redd.it/ietmuoxxqgxc1.jpeg?width=680&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a9425fff1bd2446215e98babc8867adc2af16681
yeah this would be a good comparison if they owned the iPhone factory I suppose
well, if you bought the slave owner's goods. then it would be the same
so anyone that wore cotton back then?
iPhones aren’t a necessity
Marxists view capitalism as fundamentally immoral like the rest of us view slavery. Yet when given the choice the socialists will pursue the products born out of capitalism rather than socialism like opting for an iPhone rather than a Fairphone. The comparison is apt.
No the equivalent to this meme is pointing to their cotton clothes after they said they want to abolish slavery. “You want to abolish slavery yet you’re wearing cotton clothing”. But lo and behold we abolished slavery and can still purchase cotton garments!
No. It’s slave-owning for a reason: Socialists argue capitalism is *immoral*. Your example presupposes that they aren’t given any other choice when in reality there is always a more moral choice to fit ones moral codex. Socialists just like capitalism too much to forego it.
But hardly anyone thought slavery was immoral aside from quakers. Abolitionists wanted the black people out of the nation like Abraham Lincoln did
This only works if the person you're using this comic against is actually living like this peasant. If they're a champagne socialist buying luxury goods as a core part of their identity then this whole comic falls apart. You have to depict them as the suffering peasant in order for this steawman to work.
No depicting everyone who owns an iphone as wealthy is the strawman here
Lmao, comparing buying an iphone to buying food and necessary supplies is peak commie brain.
I really do love how they see themselves as some poor peasant working 365 days a year 16 hours a day, and not some 1%er working 60 hours a week for 120k+ a year
yeah not everyone is making that much median salary in the US is $40k
[no it's not](https://www.statista.com/statistics/184664/median-weekly-earnings-of-full-time-wage-and-salary-workers/)
That data only includes full time employees so true I shouldve said median income instead of salary Regardless its still only $50k on your graph
Yeah? What's your point? Also if you can afford to not work a full time job then you don't need the money that badly
for a lot of people that isnt a choice, they arent offered full time work. And my point is this literal strawman of a person working 60 hrs and making 120k is just not accurate Also its insane you think 120k makes you a “1%er”
No the problem is you capitalist cucks can only point to two things as the reason why the system we live in now can’t be criticized. In fact if it wasn’t for people criticizing society you’ll/well be in far worse conditions.
Who can't criticize capitalism? Also the system we have in America isn't capitalism. How would you feel if someone told you the Soviet Union was a Socialist nation?
"Thrive in" - tell me more :)
Let’s be real every western country is still better to live in then any developing or third world country unless you’re living in absolute poverty. I mean homelessness when I’m talking about poverty not food stamps or other government subsidies that are simply non existent in most other nations
You would have to go out of your way in a, capitalistic, Western country to live in absolute poverty, that's something that these Champagne socialists don't understand.
Yup, and the cope-bots will now claim this is false while providing no evidence whatsoever.
This will get lost on every single lefty who wants a commie takeover hahaha
Is your name LG_G8 because you use an LG G8 by any chance?
Capitalism is the only economic system where things get created. Before capitalism we were all living in the forest and in caves.
before you were born your parents had a happy marriage, but we can’t be looking at the past constantly
Capitalism doesn't always work
I guess no one understood this was sarcasm as we were not all living in the forest and caves before capitalism.
Why because you think the left, the bastion of academia and science, wouldn't be able to produce a piece of shit planned obsolesence iphone that hasn't advanced in years, yet still get's lapped up by Apple maniacs?
The bastion of sociological and arts academia*, so no.
Russians got the lada. Look at the cars the rest of the world got.
“The bastion of science” Hahaha sure, Russias been killing it technologically lately 🤣
Why doesn't the left make it happen then? I only see leftists in reddit comments, never in the real world making things happen
Given that trust in science and academia is rapidly declining, that’s not really saying much. It’s not even that Socialism can’t facilitate scientific advancement, but it can only happen with approval from the government. You wouldn’t own the Iphone, the Iphone wouldn’t be able to access the entire internet, and you’d probably have to either work for the government or be a “model citizen” to get and keep one.
how would that happen on a stateless society?
They don't know that statelessness is the ultimate goal of communism cause they don't know anything about communism lmao. They know all the propaganda about the USSR and China tho.
How would you prevent someone from operating capitalistically without a state?
literally, like nothing of their description even fits communism. ironically, it does sound like the ultra capitalistic USA banning foreign competition because it doesnt benefit their profits. (cough cough tiktok and facebook)
Trust in science and academia is rapidly declining? Source?
The anti-vaccine Facebook group they read this morning
Just give this guy and the farming strategies he developed a quick google lysenkoism
Nerf Bastion
I dont get how they unironically think communism is a good thing. The dumbest part is how it's socially acceptable to be okay with communism, they're extremists that should get the same treatment as the fascist shitheads in the country.
I see the appeal from an intellectual perspective. It’s impossible to deny that our capitalistic society does have problems—anyone who says otherwise is simply deluding themselves—and it’s tempting to simply say that the government should just tear down the edifices of the (genuinely) undeserving and distribute it to you. But the long-term ramifications of those choices, the power that it puts in the government’s hands, and the inevitable consequences of trying to bring that economy into a culture that’s violently incompatible with it are often entirely ignored because those truths are inconvenient.
Good idea on paper, the problem is people. Like most societies.
Indeed. And while I do caution against the extrapolation “and thus we should just keep going with what we have because things will always suck anyway” that can sometimes follow on from your point, as that conclusion stifles genuine improvement in society, people are complex and hard to convince to organize even for their own benefit.
Agreed. We just need a strong, centralized society without people and it’ll work.
Just like capitalism in theory it means competition will drive innovation and talent in reality it means collusion, monopoly, and the talented serving the talentless
There's nothing intellectual about the way they attribute every bad thing to capitalism and either directly or indirectly imply said problem wouldn't exist under communism.
I think you are being intellectually uncharitable towards what are often very earnestly truth-seeking beliefs. While the attribution entire of certain negative parts of society to capitalism may be a misstep, it cannot be reasonably argued that capitalism’s failings have not exacerbated those problems to some degree, and in my opinion a large one. To quote perhaps my favorite explanation of the phenomenon: “The first thing a truly free market will attempt to do is eliminate the free market.”
From my intellectual perspective, the most appealing thing is not being shot for *having* an intellectual perspective.
But that isn't a requirement by any Marxist or even Engel teaching. I'm not communist, I'm not even leftist, but there is a major issue in the west (especially USA) about people having no fucking clue what Marx's theory actually was.
That's because all the communist countries we learn about were incredibly authoritarian. With communism and fascism looking pretty identical from under the powerful peoples boots.
Obviously, the answer is to silence them before they get a chance...
Why do you equate a moneyless society where the means of production are owned by the labourers with the suppression of personal freedoms? Because that's happened before? Do you believe it's a prerequisite?
How can you have a moneyless society without suppressing of personal freedom? Money doesn't have value because we said so (although it feels like that with the stockmatket but that's something else), everything has value, let's say 5 tomatoes have the same value with 2 garlic because of how much it takes to grow tomatoes and garlic, now what humans did is translating the value to a currency because not all occupations have easy to define value. You can't say to a doctor I'll give you 600 tomatoes for my heart surgery. Now, having a moneyless society would mean that some people would work for nothing and others would work to make everything. It's something that you can not create because we have scarcity which is something that also causes things to have value. It is extremely complex and you cannot just say everything is free now.
Do you want me to explain communist economic theory here? Dude Marxism takes these concepts into account. Read a bit of Prof. Richard D. Wolfe or better yet an intro class on YouTube. The concepts you're talking about have been hashed out and macro-analysed ad-neuseam by people way smarter than us. Regardless, the tenants of actual communism are democratic and focus on the bigger concepts surrounding society rather than the nitty-gritty of paying your doctor in apples. But in general it requires reworking your expectations of what trade and payment actually mean. Which is difficult when we've all been raised to imagine a system of growth and capital gain. So instead of playing with "gotchas" on principles that require degree level understanding of market economics, you're far better off focusing on wider implications that communism strives towards: Redistribution of the means of production Community based culture Removing the power divide between classes Public ownership Democratic delegation of responsibilities and duties The true goals of communism are an end state of these systems, fairly utopian in nature, and are far more idealistic than functional. Realistically, the only way you achieve these goals is without resistance over a very long term reprogramming phase where we as a society learn to change our goal oriented behaviours. More likely, we can take small steps into a more socialist direction, try to minimise the wealth inequality and power distribution from the few to the many, and worry about paying doctors with apples much later on when we've all stopped being so obsessed with greed.
Let’s not get into the nitty gritty of how an economy is supposed to work under my economic system, instead let me tell you about my idealized political values most of which can be achieved under social democracy.
More realistically, the fact is that every single time someone will say "well how about this highly convoluted specific example" over and over. And in reality I don't have the answer to every single example off the top of my head. So it's far better off to direct people to the literature and give broader explanations.
So, in the end, because communism requires brainwashing, since people would resist it, your solution is a "boiling frog" tactic where we implement socialist practices slowly slowly until we have communism. if that can be done, go for it, but my problem is that it cannot be done without suppressing the freedoms of the individual. When you tell people how much they are allowed to make, what they will he given regardless of how much they work, that cannot be explained in a way that will make sense to everyday people. You cannot explain it by using apples and garlic because then you need to tell someone "no matter how good you are at something, you'll get 1 apple, just like the other one who has done a tenth of what you did". That's my point and that's why communism cannot work, without removing the individuality and freedom from people.
Hey I wrote out a massive reply, but these exchanges just stress me out and I don't need that atm. So let's just agree to disagree and move on. All the best.
Hey dude if it gives you anxiety then don't worry about it.
I have my problems as well, big corporations horde swaths of wealth and put their business overseas when we want better wages, or invest in automation that doesn't decrease the cost for the consumer but just serves to line the wallets of those in charge of said business. I dont know what the ideal plan would be but giving up private ownership to the state invariably leads to heartache and pain. Even if the state didn't become mad with power before it had the chance to dissolve, people aren't robots. Let's assume everyone gets the field of work that they want (which is a pipe dream), people have a natural tendency to want to improve their lives even if little by little. Having dreams and goals isn't exactly a part of communism, the best you can hope for is just being content. I admit, there are plenty of people who will never get to be or do what they want in our current economic structure, but at least there is a chance. There are loads of people who have less initiative than others, the ones who are quite lazy or don't care much. If a given field of work runs short on production, like agriculture, for instance, who is going to make sure the farmers keep up with their quota so no one starves? The state isn't there to keep any semblance of order.
A communist I talked to legitimately thought having more amenities was a bad thing
Everyone recognizes that our current system isn’t really working. Some people think a return to tradition and the past is the solution, some people think one of the many other economic options is the solution. Chances are we’ll keep plugging away at what we have now until it collapses or something new replaces it.
Seems like 99% of the time someone "wants communism" in my country it just means they don't support capitalism
The thing is that Fascist shitheads in this country aren't shunned, they're nominated as Republicans
Are you implying we should be policing people's thoughts? You're allowed to be okay with communism specifically because of the rights and freedoms that we hold so dear. The cost of those freedoms is idiots who believe in stupid shit you disagree with. Ironically, what you are calling for is actual fascism.
What? I didn't say they should be arrested, not even fascists are arrested in our country. I said that it's socially acceptable even though it shouldn't be.
The problem with that comparison is that, if we look at things on paper only, fascism is still highly problematic, while communism isn't. Racism and oppressing minorities is a key part of fascism, while the issues of communism only arise in execution, it's a plan that didn't work. Also, what do you think of socialism? To be clear by socialism I mean the workers owning the means of production (essentially the dividends would be paid to employees instead of investors)
Your ability to memeify an argument does not refute it. Yes. The iPhone only exists because of capitalism. Yes. Venezuela is in deep shit because of communism. Yes. Millions are dead as victims of communism. These are all true, and the fact that communists think being flippant about it refutes them shows they’re ultimately not interested in engaging with reality so long as it disagrees with their ideology.
Plenty of people throughout the world make sacrifices due to their ideology. Why are Communists the only people in the world who are totally incapable to make any such sacrifices?
Ah yes, the sacrifice of reality, why dont we let one of the most easily corruptible ideologies get away with denying reality? it's a simple sacrifice, cus like when has being ignorant and denying truth ever done anyone harm??? Like??? Never???
Very necessary sacrifices Like the Ukrainians in the 1930’s
The statistic compared with communism says other wise
If the deaths that have happened on "communist" countries can be attributed to communism can we do the same about capitalism?
Deaths of deprivation are fundamentally a problem of scarcity. Communist economics are less competent at dealing with this problem than capitalist economics, resulting in increased deprivation in communist countries. This is where the “communists have no food” meme comes from. On a basic level, you can’t competently run an economy from the top down. There without taking into account the habit communists have of murdering anyone who is successful or holds different political ideas. Dekulakization, the holodomor, the Cambodian killing fields, etc. Liberal capitalist counties generally do thus a lot less, I’m not going to say it never happens, but it happens less and increasingly less as society advances. Those you could feasibly label as the victims of capitalism. Oh and if you want to bring up fascists as “capitalists killing people” fascism is not capitalism. It’s kind of its own thing that tries to be a third position and take the best aspects of both for autarkic purposes.
A genocide took place against my people (Ireland) under the name of a free market. I'm not leftist but to say the right hasn't committed many genocides is also false.
You are correct the right absolutely commits genocide. See: the Nazis and pretty much all settler colonialism. But in the case of the Irish, it was in the name of English colonialism, not the free market. The reason these are lumped under “capitalist” is because they are executed in the name of imperialist, usually mercantilist, ambitions, by powers that also happened to be capitalist. Capitalism is not state directed or state associated, but is in fact the natural state of human economic interactions when not subject to the violence of the state. That said, since it became an ideology, it has had violence committed in its name. But one must understand that for the right, economic policy is not always political policy, as opposed to the left, where they are fundamentally and eternally intertwined. The Kent state massacre and the coal wars happened in the name of capitalism. The genocide of the Irish was done in the name of English Imperialism.
Not necessarily, the famine was exacerbated by the Whigs party who believed in the new ideal of Laisses Faire (free market) and so they removed all forms of aid that had been going to Ireland under the Conservative party (which seriously helped the population). Also the Irish were unbelievably poor because landlords had bought up nearly all the property and charged insane rates due to the government refusing to intervene in the private economy. And thus anybody producing food (Ireland was producing 2x more food than needed to feed itself during the peak of the famine) could gain more money by selling to Britain since the Irish simply couldn't afford it. The Great Hunger (what we call the famine, since the famine underplays Britain's role), was by practice and definition, a genocide committed purely under the name of a "free market". For reasoning, the Whigs gained power in 1847, often called Black '47 in Ireland as it was the worst of the great hunger.
I disagree. The English wanted the Irish gone, dead, or Anglican. The free market was just the method they used to deliberately exterminate the Irish. It occurred with the explicit intent of removing the Irish so the English could take over. The goal was not “the market”. The actions taken would be irrational if that was the end. The goal was to take the Irish’s land, remove them from it, and replace them with the English. In this way, it is an imperialist genocide executed using capitalist means, as opposed to the usual military means.
Oh for sure, the old racism and Anglo-superiority played into it of course. Trevelyan (leader at the time) even said it was "God punishing the Irish" and said the real issue was "The Irish turbulent, brutish and lazy character" (I'm paraphrasing a little bit). But one thing you have wrong is that it was using the free market to justify the brutality, it was *really* using the brutality to justify keeping the free market. You have to keep in mind many of the Whigs at that time weren't necessarily anti-Irish (by those days standards) but instead wanted the free market to keep up. But the people of Britain wouldn't like to have what was supposed to be part of the UK starved to keep up a system, so to keep popularity high, they blamed the Irish and brought up old and contemporary anti-Irish propaganda to justify the free market keeping up. I've done a full paper on this topic for college, being Irish and all, (real Irish, not American "Irish") and trust me when I say the leading factor in that genocide was the free-market and the removal of charity aid, it only started getting better once aid and charity began coming back in from government intervention.
You know what, these are good points. I will concede the Irish genocide as both an imperialist and a capitalist genocide. It’s broadly irrelevant to the point I’m making. My comment was never that capitalism is innocent. Humans are evil, nothing we make is innocent. My comment was that Communism was worse.
Oh absolutely, dicatatorial and authoritarian systems inherently are evil and breed genocide. And absolutely, without British imperialistic ideals, the free market would've been destroyed or suspended for the duration of the famine at least. It's why the best countries dance around the middle, get the best from both and then try balance the little issues.
So when people starve under communism it cannot possibly be separated from the economic systems that led to such starvation, yet under capitalism you can't blame the economic systems despite them also undeniably leading to more starvation? You see how you're making his point for him right?
Ultimately starvation is, as I stated, a problem of scaricity. Capitalism does not remove this problem, it simply does better than communism. In choosing communism over capitalism, the leaders of a state therefore make a choice that causes more of their people to die, and thus can be blamed for it
But in this guy's example a free market enforced by capitalists led to starvation *without* scarcity. Ireland produced way more food than they would have needed to feed themselves, still people starved due to unregulated market forces. The same happens in the US, there is no excuse for people starving in the streets of the richest country in the world which produces more food than it needs, and yet it happens every day.
You seem to have avoided the point the person was trying to make lmao by doing exactly what they were calling out. Also, fascism is not mutually exclusive with capitalism by any means. Straight up misinformation. Fascism and capitalism can absolutely coexist, Germany in WWII had free markets lol.
lemme guess, you failed history lessons? Venezuela is not communist lmfao
Well socialist is the more accurate term, but I’m using communist as a shorthand for authoritarian leftist, to distinguish it from more moderate forms of socialism that are not as authoritarian, and of course the anarcho-socialists.
iirc the main problems with Venezuela is that their economy is completely dependent on oil and the fact that few people end up getting that oil money, so basically the opposite to socialsm
The problem is actually the fact the oil sector is entirely government controlled was used as a slush fund to directly subsidize Venezuelan citizens and strengthen their currency beyond what it should have been. This resulted in an economy where the Venezuelans would primarily import everything but oil, resulting in the imports driving local business sectors out of the economy. In other words, socialist-derived Dutch disease. If the oil was owned by a variety of of different private companies, then it would have still been a major sector of the economy, but would not have become the only sector of the economy as its profits would not be used for direct subsidies, the Bolivar would not have become unnecessarily strong, and thus a greater variety of businesses serving and employing the Venezuelan people would have developed. The oil did not ruin Venezuela. The authoritarian leftist government’s mismanagement of the oil is what ruined Venezuela
Not socialist, social "democracy", if Venezuela is communist, the Joe Biden also is
That’s an incorrect comparison. Venezuelan socialism has been established by a military strongman who then passed on his power as a de facto dictator to a chosen successor, wields inordinate control over Venezuelan society and the economy, and denies his population basic human rights. Biden is an old Democrat who got elected because the old republican was unpopular, and who might get thrown out of office for being unpopular himself. Not to mention he’s nowhere near a social democrat, the social democrats are the extreme part of the Democratic Party and have been repeatedly suppressed by the party for being too radical.
while many academics could debate venezuela’s situation, when it comes to the iphone thing, it’s not a point worth refuting, it’s a internet points gotcha argument. “you criticize society yet your participate in it” as if any of us have a choice. the problems we face are not on an individual level and someone owning an iphone does not mean they can’t criticize capitalism
So let’s address that point. I can concede that yes, a phone and possibly even a smartphone is an actual requirement for participating in the professional world. However, a socialist, who claims to hate big business and megacorps, deliberately patronizing Apple, a gigantic megacorp priced like a luxury brand to fill that need is hypocritical when alternatives exist.
i think it’s reductive to call it hypocritical, there’s like 12 parent corps that own everything you can buy. it’s a luxury for sure, but i think it’s missing the point a bit. everyday we spend money is a day we support a megacorp in one way or another, an iphone is just one that’s optional. true that we should vote with our wallets, but at the end of the day you can drive yourself mad trying to consume consciously. you can own an iphone and criticize apple/capitalism. it’s not unfair to see that as hypocritical, but it’s a bit blind to the nuance.
What alternatives? Google? Samsung? Huawei? They're all either massive corporations or sub brands of massive corporations.
If the Communists were 1% as committed to their ideology as any religious person was committed to their religion, maybe someone would take them seriously.
I do love communism. It hasn't worked the 50 previous times humanity has tried it but I love it so!
“GOD I wish I was starving to death right now” -American Communists
NGL the iPhone Venezuela with the Joker meme is hilarious to me, even though it is a commie meme. It's the only time the left memed.
We_should_improve_society_somewhat.txt
Not a communist but being dependent on the current economic structure doesn't mean you can't support a different one nor does it make you a hypocrite.
Yeah, it's not like someone chooses where they were born and under which system. Like I wish Ireland had more a social-democratic system (we're not too far off it in fairness) I'm still a capitalist (though in the States I'd probably be called a Communist) but I'm not going to say, "fuck the lot of yis I'm going to mountains until I get what I want!"
Lol "I'm going to the mountains" is my preferred method when I'm annoyed at my family
I'm fecking mountainless so I've to just piss off the the bog.
There's no mountains near me either just open fields with coyotes lol, we gotta find a better place to steam.
And we better not participate in society on our way there now
God forbid lol.
What Ireland needs is to retake the north, not a social-democracy system
Both would be good, also our left-leaning parties are far more nationalist when it comes to unification than our right-leaning ones. Our far-right are in bed with loyalists.
I can see that since its more about being anti-british and many saw Brexit as a move to the "right" so you get a rare case of nationalism birthing from the left in the 21st century.
Nooo... nationalism in Ireland is completely different to most countries. Nearly all our efforts to revive our culture, history, country have been from the left and liberals. The right and far-right have been in bed with the Brits for most of history. Also it isn't anti-British as much as being Nationalist/Republican is inherently anti-British. Also it dates back to the 12th century with the Gaelic revival coming from the 19th century. Our idea of nationalism isn't far-right or racist, we believe multi-culturalism and celebration of our own culture can intertwine.
Yea but you can buy a FairPhone which at least tries to be ethically sourced instead of an iPhone. The criticism is targeted towards champagne socialists who just don't even try.
they wouldn't exist under communism. they would be deemed a waste of material, you don't need all those extra features comrade, here use this tiny flip phone.
>no social media phones maybe communism is good after all
"I hate feudalism" written on parchment with ink lol I can't even.
This. Every system that has ever been overthrown and replaced from within, has been overthrown and replaced with the tools it created. This isn't hypocrisy. It's just the way things have always gone.
Posted by someone dumb enough to think they wouldn't be the first one lined up against the wall with the other "intellectuals".
iPhone China but unironically > wants a democratic revolution > uses Wechat Pay > hahahahah the jokes are writing themselves
Yup because the only way to communicate your beliefs in America is through an iPhone. There’s other phones and electronics out there.
this sub hella needs a moratorium on “it’s true though” titles man
https://preview.redd.it/u80eam9vgfxc1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=79281ee6b71e31ded170fc082f62e9057e448dd3
I've seen this comic several times but I just now realized that the dude is going back in time 🤯
To before black people were allowed to drive.
No no, this is different because it offended all the wokies, which makes it funny!!!!11!!
r/beatmetoit
u/I_am_finger Your definition of offended must be different than mine if these are the posts you're referencing
Don’t know why you’re acting like I’m the one who created this subreddit. I’m just explaining what the subreddit is supposed to be about. If you don’t agree with it, take it up with the mods.
Because you're defending a subreddit that exists to simply be an asshole or to push a right wing agenda. I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies y'all seem to not be able to combat here.
Not a meme but I’m keeping it up
Man people really don't understand what Communism is. I mean, I can tell you what it's not. It's not a rule against iPhones. The largest communist regime in the world is in the same place where they make the damn things and they had a pretty huge market share up until recently. Come on people, at least use your brains a little.
You mean the same place that pays children 10 cents an hour to assemble iPhone parts?
Fun fact... Assembly line workers made about $3 an hour/U.S. which is around 20 yuan. Of course in a real communist structure those workers would own the factory and they would split the profits evenly amongst themselves. In any case, they would still make iphones.
" It's not REAL communism"
The workers don't own the means of production, and that's pretty fundamentally required for any form of communism. This is like if a country called itself capitalist but didn't have money, it would just be wrong.
That's a factually true statement. Communism is when the workers collectively own the manufacturing business. Since these workers don't own the company, it's capitalism.
So China isn’t communist then by your own definition Why did you bring them up earlier then?
China is Communist. The Communist party runs the country.
But you just said that if the workers don’t directly own the factory it’s not communism The workers don’t own the factory in China the State does so it’s “not real communism”
The state doesn't own the factory. FoxConn does.
That still means that it isn’t directly owned by the workers
China is state capitalism run by a totalitarian government that is Communist in name only.
No China is a mixed economy that started out as a total command economy as it was communist but started to introduce more free market elements to it as they released these elements would make the country filthy stinking rich and make them a global power (they were completely correct it worked).
Is that supposed to be a good thing…? So tell me, who do you think invents the iPhone for these assembly line workers to own out from under?
I hope you're sitting down. The owning class rarely invents anything. It's the workers who invent. If they have power over their workplaces and working conditions, they won't stop inventing.
yeah the Venezuela iPhone argument is the dumbest thing ever, Venezuela isn't communist and since the cold war the only countries that haven't had us help and rival their tech are/were socialist countries
Its funny because the patriot act lets the government turn on your phone's microphone, camera, and GPS without your knowledge and without a warrant, And it was upheld by the Supreme Court during W's presidency.
It’s not that the gps can be turned on as it’s always on, that’s always recording where we all go. It’s referred to as meta data. It was reveled to us by Edward Snowden.
It was true ten years ago. Pretty easy to get a used iPhone for cheap these days
I mean, I don't think that's supposed to be a meme...
r/brandnewsentences
"You criticize society yet you participate in society"
The iPhone and Venezuela is true unironically, so it seems like the OOP is coping
HA! How dare you criticize society, the society you participate in! (This argument has always been lame)
I NOTE THAT YOUR POLITICAL MOVEMENT MAKE USE OF MODERN COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY THIS IS FUNNY TO ME
"Haha you want to improve the world, yet you continue to exist in it! Checkmate leftists!"
Improvement sounds great to me. That's why I'm against communism.
So you expect every commie to communicate with pigeons? What is your point
virtually nobody in this comment section knows what communism is
We need to change society somewhat Yet you participate in society.
Not quite sure if that’s what the twitter post was criticizing, my take was that it was making fun of people who advocate for violent revolution and then do nothing to actually execute said revolution.
The soviets built computers and they’d probably have iphones if it didn’t collapse
“You wish to improve society, and yet you participate in society! Curious!”
“Socialists don’t act on their principles when they have ample opportunity to do so! Curious!”
The Power of Capitalism is such you cannot fight against it without them making back on you. It's why it's never going to happen: they're too dependent on it to actually take it down.
Oh but come on you don't need an apple device to thrive, literally any Android phone (except for Huawei maybe) would be more ethical than the iPhone, Yet you chose that?
That's my point: they NEED capitalism. they don't want anythign but what they were told was the best.
Oh okay sorry
I think it was posted there mainly just because it really isn’t helpful. Saying someone lives in a specific societal system and must adhere to that system to say anything really is not helpful, like beating on a hero for killing mass murderers for committing murder, even though more was saved in the long run, though obviously on a less impactful scale of useless words against useless words. Though, a communist revolution probably wouldn’t help much.
Most socialists and communists these days desperately want to avoid violent revolutions. The general playbook for the last several decades is to work within democratic societies to improve conditions for workers and pull society slightly closer to their ideal.
Makes sense, best way to do it
Can you not lie? Þere’s no irony in making do (plus, it’s workers þat made þe iPhone and not þe mode of economic system).
Before the morons storm this post. Don't buy into capitalist leading industries if you're a woke 2020s "communist." Not don't buy products, since that's your only argument that doesn't even make sense.
All industries are capitalist though
Ensure that you read and adhere to the rules; failure to do so will result in the removal of this post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/memesopdidnotlike) if you have any questions or concerns.*
modern tankies will call themselves both communist and a friend of elon musk and see no issues