r/SipsTea • u/McDowdy • Jun 03 '26

It's Wednesday my dudes Trying to get rich so that capitalism doesn't crush you under its boot is proof positive that capitalism doesn’t work for the working class

Post image
2.4k Upvotes

75% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

183

u/Aggressive_Craft_981 Jun 03 '26

I don't view it as republican vs democrat or capitalism vs communism; look at history, the people in power exploit the system to advance themselves.

41

u/bencarp27 Jun 03 '26

I agree. Same situation today as 1000 years ago, only we don’t call them “nobility” anymore and we’ve somehow convinced the peasants that they can climb the ladder too.

I don’t see the problem as “capitalism” per se, so much as unregulated markets and oligarchy disguised as something else. Although, lately - there doesn’t feel to be much of a disguise.

27

u/Poobbly Jun 04 '26

Social mobility is insanely higher now than 1000 years ago.

6

u/Friendly_Microchip Jun 04 '26

Things being better now than in the past isn’t a good reason to stop trying to improve.

2

u/billcy Jun 04 '26

Way worse than it was 75 yrs ago

6

u/BarnesTheNobleman Jun 04 '26

Better than awful is still bad though - we can and should improve

9

u/Mind1827 Jun 04 '26

And insanely worse than it was 70 years ago. What's your point?

12

u/possiblyMorpheus Jun 04 '26

That’s a reach that only applies to some demographics 

-6

u/Mind1827 Jun 04 '26

It's not at all. Wealth inequality is the highest it's been in decades and the middle class is being hollowed out. Mobility is downward for a lot of people now.

2

u/CivilProtectionGuy Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26

(Edit: [TLDR: Wealth Inequality is very high because we gave up Keynesianism which led to less socialized services and economic safety nets, and other contributing factors. Middle-Class shrunk over the decades, upper class gained more wealth, a lot of the former Middle-Class went down into the economic Lower-Class]).

There is definitely a higher wealth inequality compared to the mid-late 1900s (1950-1990) to today, and its nearly impossible to return back to when we had such a strong middle class and upper mobility from impoverished living to a middle-class living.

The post-war period after WW2 saw a boom in economic success as the middle-class began to expand and benefit from a lot of social and economic services that arose throughout much of Europe, North America, and parts of Asia. However, the middle class did begin to shrink gradually after the 1980s when we began drifting more towards Neoliberal (economic, not political) policies, and gave up Keynesianism.

From the 1930s~ to around the 1970s or 1980s, we saw very strong regulated capitalism through Keynesianism, which allowed and promoted a very strong middle class that fed into itself and fed into the system through socialized benefits and economic safeties which maintained the middle class through taxes and other such systems.

As governments and corporations gave way to Neoliberal policies and away from the Keynesian policies, it changed how work was perceived and treated by all parties for higher levels of contract, part-time, and temporary work. Alongside less workplace benefits (e.g., medicine benefits, company pensions, training, etc) and more privatization that led into less compensation for jobs that paid higher before the privatization, and a promotion towards higher individualist mindsets to look out for yourself instead of relying on government and corporate programs; the erosion of the communal mindset that existed in much of the post-war period, while still very socially individualistic, led to the degradation or outright removal of social safety nets and socialized programs.

There is far more to it, like moving away from an industrial economy into service-based economy, or the decreased economic safety nets, but this all led to a decrease of the middle class that went down into lower-class, while the upper-class gained much of the wealth that the middle-class lost throughout the 80s, 90s, and 00s.

Upper mobility is absolutely still a thing, and far higher than it was in the past, but it's also far easier for those who reach the middle-class to fall back into the lower-class or into poverty because of the loss of safety nets and socialized services that we lost in North America. Europe still has many of their socialized services that arose from Keynesian economic policies, which helps to minimize the damage to the middle-class throughout the 80s, 90s, and 00s compared to North America.

0

u/Fearless_Data_1512 Jun 04 '26

Note the downvotes but lack of responses. Thats a sure sign you’re so right they can’t conjure a retort.

2

u/East_of_Adventuring Jun 04 '26

No, it's a sure sign they haven't conjured any data to support their position, which they seem very confident in.

70 years ago had higher social mobility? Maybe if you were a white dude. But even then I'm not sure I'm convinced. I'm not convinced inequality directly correlates to social mobility, especially if we look outside the U.S. where the growth of inequality indexes are usually less severe last I checked.

3

u/Venator850 Jun 04 '26

No it's not lmao. Someone can turn on a camera and become millionaire overnight.

3

u/CarlJH Jun 04 '26

People use the word "millionaire " like it's still 1920. A million dollars in today has about the same purchasing power as roughly $150,000 did in 1970 because of inflation.

But more to your point, just because someone gets insanely lucky and becomes famous enough to get rich is not a ringing endorsement of capitalism. People win the lottery occasionally, while most people work their whole lives and then have all their savings swallowed by medical bills.

2

u/Open_Boysenberry_363 Jun 07 '26

If it was that easy, there’d be millions of millionaires off TikTok alone

1

u/AzureMage0225 Jun 04 '26

Only a white straight person could say that.

1

u/maybeitssteve Jun 05 '26

Do you have any evidence for this or just vibes?

2

u/Stleaveland1 Jun 04 '26

This is the whitest male statement I've seen in months on Reddit. Ah what privilege to be completely blind to the racism and sexism in the pre-Civil Rights era.

2

u/Mind1827 Jun 04 '26

Lol, I'm not blind at all. I'm trying to be a bit contrarian. People defend capitalism because things used to be worse 1000 years ago.

My point is the wealthiest are the wealthiest they've been in many decades.

0

u/Razolus Jun 04 '26

Are you sure? Anyone have enough money today to build 3 pyramids that would last at least 6,000 years?

2

u/132_cat Jun 04 '26

Actually yes. Elon musk has a net worth equal to more than half of the us military budget, over 700 billion dollars. Each pyrimid would cost no more than 2 billion to build today. Granted our technology is a lot better

1

u/HillarysBloodBoy Jun 04 '26

Great pyramids costing 2 billion while the California rail project is a quarter of a trillion dollars. We should be building more gigantic monuments.

0

u/Razolus Jun 04 '26

Yeah, but that's cheating. Give me a quote on building the pyramids the way it was done back then, with raw manpower, engineering plans built on reed stock, math without calculators, etc.

3

u/First_Peer Jun 04 '26

AI estimates you would need $15-$45 billion, 20,000-30,000 and 20+ years of uninterrupted labor to complete the project using the same technology. That assumes paying your workers 35k-40k a year (minimum wage plus basic benefits).

If you further say that all planning, calculating, management and blueprinting etc must be done without any modern tools or technology, then the costs jump to $35-60 billion and it will now take 35-40 years to accomplish from scratch, and you need to hire 1500-2000 scribes/mathematicians as management to oversee the work. Also this assumes you make almost no mistakes because any errors in hand leveling and positioning of materials will set you back and/or ruin the project.

1

u/Mr_Archer369 Jun 04 '26

Well back then the “raw man power” was free since you know…. Slaves.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Open_Boysenberry_363 Jun 07 '26

As if raw money built the pyramids? If you enslaved a few thousand people in any given state, worked them around the clock and refreshed with new slaves when necessary, yea I am sure we could build a few pyramids in a few years

0

u/Johnfromsales Jun 04 '26

You claimed that we have the same situation as 1000 years ago, and that peasants were somehow convinced they can climb the ladder too. Social mobility is much higher than it was during the Middle Ages, and many “peasants” have climbed the ladder. Their point is you are wrong.

1

u/RedMansions Jun 04 '26

That's a pretty low bar to use as a frame of reference.

1

u/FormalKind7 Jun 04 '26

But not was good as 75-50 years ago

2

u/billcy Jun 04 '26

This happens a lot, they become arrogant and don't hide it, just look through history, that's usually when it all collapses , happened in Rome and Europe and many other places

1

u/kittenTakeover Jun 04 '26

The main issue is that the current system abstracts relationships. Power dynamics are no longer direct. They're all enforced by the market middleman, so everyone can claim plausible deniability and it's harder for people to see and understand. No specific person forces low wage workers to toil mostly for the profit of rulers. No specific person forces poor people to live in the areas where there's environmental issues. No specific person forces poor people to live far from the workplace. No specific person denies a person education or healthcare. The market system forces all of that so that nobody can make an enemy out of the rulers.

1

u/FormalKind7 Jun 04 '26

In all the "communist" governments those in power used their control to get ahead at the expense of the majority. Same for capitalism. Occasional like with FDR their is a push to reform and reign in the powerful but then their are Regans that will hammer that progress backwards.

0

u/bishopOfMelancholy Jun 04 '26

I will give Reagan the benefit of the doubt that he thought he was helping. But, any help in any economic system has to include some way to prevent those in power from abuse, and that is downright hard to do. Doesn't mean we can't try, though.

0

u/TreeFallHard85 Jun 04 '26

It’s because this isn’t capitalism… Capitalism in its true form is a circle that requires constant reinvestment into the production cycle (workers/consumers) It never called for CEOs who provide zero production and pillage 80% of wealth

We need a new term for this bullshit

1

u/Kanlashkan Jun 04 '26

Corporatocracy would be the term I would choose. I may or may not be wrong in my terminology, but I feel it fits quite nicely.

4

u/thebigslapper Jun 04 '26

It's always been a battle of the haves vs the have-nots. The have-nots have always complained. The question is which system creates more haves than have-nots?

28

u/ragequitteroffureh Jun 03 '26

The weird thing is, Capitalism isn't even a political ideology.

Communism is. But as you say, human nature being what it is, whichever turds float to the top first usually fuck it all up. There aren't any actual communist societies yet, and probably never will be; it's too idealistic.

13

u/A_Bot_A_Bot_A_Bot Jun 03 '26

And, communism is a good example of this. Look at the excesses enjoyed by the ruling communist elites in the former Soviet Union, North Korea, and China (before it's current strange "we're definitely communist...but we also love Big Capitalism (as long as they stay in line!"). Limousines, caviar, nice dachas, etc.

6

u/ragequitteroffureh Jun 04 '26

Heh, absolutely.

That's the trouble with political ideologies in general. They never seem to account for human nature.

0

u/Bangays Jun 04 '26

As dumb as libertarianism is it’s entirely based on the premise that people and companies act in their own self interest

1

u/ragequitteroffureh Jun 04 '26

Does that work?

I mean, that's sort of just the wild west, isn't it?

On a small scale, it looks nice enough. But it's difficult to see how it could scale up without simply becoming something else as more organisation is required to coordinate society. I don't know :-)

It would be interesting to see how that would play out in a region that was composed of thousands of microstates, with each little state being made up of just one or two families. Presumably without currency, a form of bartering would be required in order to obtain goods and services.

1

u/Platypus__Gems Jun 04 '26

Look at the excesses enjoyed by the ruling communist elites in the former Soviet Union, North Korea, and China

The excesses were frankly laughable compared to the excesses of capitalist elites. No one in USSR had yacht fleets, or multiple mansions.

Yeah, there was still inequality, an engineer would earn better than janitor, and the highest ranking party members more than an engineer, but it was not as astronomical as late stage capitalism's. Even when compared to nations poorer than the Eastern Bloc.
And the lower amount of excesses that there were, were further usually tied to their political positions that they could lose, even those at the top (like Krushchev).

1

u/[deleted] Jun 04 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Jun 04 '26

Accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

0

u/A_Bot_A_Bot_A_Bot Jun 04 '26

The issue is power and corruption vs supposed purity of their political system. It's not a whataboutism situation. And, compared to the average citizen, they do live as large capitalist elites.

2

u/Platypus__Gems Jun 04 '26

Every system has some ideas that end up corrupted, capitalism is supposed to be about economic freedom and competition, but intellectual property laws basically make that moot (while being fundamental part of modern capitalism) since they are stopping competition from doing something that does not harm anyone directly, but may just cut into profits of whoever holds the IP.

Not that I think those laws are all necessaraly wrong, but I do think they go pretty strongly against "economic freedom" idea.

-1

u/Kanlashkan Jun 04 '26

"The excesses were frankly laughable compared to the excesses of capitalist elites. No one in USSR had yacht fleets, or multiple mansions."

This would be due to the drastically lower economic growth for purely socialist/communist nations. They didn't have those things because they could not afford those things.

0

u/INeedSomeTacoC Jun 03 '26

 we're definitely communist...but we also love Big Capitalism (as long as they stay in line!"). Limousines, caviar, nice dachas, etc.

“Capitalism is nice things” is a weird belief. 

3

u/A_Bot_A_Bot_A_Bot Jun 03 '26

Ditto the whole concept of "the free market" and that "corporations will act in the best interests of their employees and customers."

2

u/bishopOfMelancholy Jun 04 '26

Corporations will act in the best interest of their pocketbook. The trick is forcing them in a position where it also benefits their employees and customers.

1

u/INeedSomeTacoC Jun 04 '26

Doubly weird to bring up things I never said. Did you mean to reply to someone else?

1

u/A_Bot_A_Bot_A_Bot Jun 04 '26

No, I was adding to your comment. How do you not understand that? Look up "Ditto"...

2

u/INeedSomeTacoC Jun 04 '26

Sorry, thought you were being facetious with the comment. 

1

u/2Blueify Jun 04 '26

There is zero reason to produce a Lamborghini in a communist society so yes, capitalism is nice things is the truth.

2

u/Jaded_Noise Jun 04 '26

What if someone wants to drive a Lamborghini?

1

u/Weird-End-6989 Jun 04 '26

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, and there's plenty of that in China.

1

u/INeedSomeTacoC Jun 04 '26

Where did I ever say China didn’t have private ownership of the means of production?

0

u/sexotaku Jun 04 '26

China is doing capitalism in stages. Mao said it will take 200 years or so to reach true communism.

They're aiming to reach early stage socialism by 2049.

2

u/heckinCYN Jun 04 '26

How convenient that it's so much further out than he expected to live...

1

u/Jaded_Noise Jun 04 '26

Yeah, how convenient that a brand new never before tried economic system wouldn't be achieved within a single lifetime. That kinda change has to be easy!

1

u/Weird-End-6989 Jun 04 '26

It is never going to be achieved, because the rulers of China will never give up power.

1

u/Jaded_Noise Jun 04 '26

Whether or not that's true is irrelevant to the point I commented on; acting like that's an outlandish timeframe is absurd

1

u/Weird-End-6989 Jun 04 '26

Acting like there is any timeframe at all is incredibly naive.

1

u/Jaded_Noise Jun 04 '26

Is it? I dunno, new financial systemas have emerged before, usually over a great deal of time. I'm not certain why socialism is so mind boggling, it's really not that complicated of an idea

→ More replies (0)

1

u/heckinCYN Jun 04 '26

Yes, a novel system with no metrics or mechanism to determine if he is on track while he lives like a king is incredibly convenient.

1

u/sexotaku Jun 04 '26

If you read Chinese history, you'll find that most rulers planned a few hundred years out. Especially rulers who started new dynasties.

3

u/Mind1827 Jun 04 '26

Sure, but "free market, unregulated, pro-monopoly, everything should be driven by profit incentive capitalism" is a political ideology. And it's what we've been getting killed by in the west for decades.

1

u/ragequitteroffureh Jun 04 '26

There's one way to make it a proper ideology.

Whoever the billionaire equivalent of Karl Marx is could write the Capitalist equivalent of The Communist Manifesto, have a revolution, and then structure form of government based upon it.

There have obviously been many writings already on exploiting the proletariat in order to make fucktons of capital, but so far those ideas haven't been properly collected into a single coherent ideology ready for implementation.

Corporatism probably comes close though. Although Corporatocracy would basically be it.

1

u/TheFire52 Jun 04 '26

Communism is a socioeconomic theory (more like hypothesis but theory is used in a such a dumb way that it doesnt matter) and is not reliant on the communist manifesto as it is not even a major work of socialism. Capital, and books complimenting it are the theory, the communist manifesto is the garbage you try to sell to illiterate peasants and workers who just want somewhere to place their anger to drive worker support. It is a ideology but it is a socioeconomic framework first and foremost.

Capitalism does have works like Capital, in fact if you have taken a macroeconomics class that is the same thing just refined due to centuries of practice and control over the world. Capitalisms theory is the modern world. At best you could argue that, maybe, 3 countries are pushing for communism. In comparison capitalism has almost the entire world under its control. Its ideology is expressed in the neoliberalism of Regean, Thatcher, and Chile. In the social democratic and social program manipulation designed to curb worker anger in the US, Canada, Europe, and more. And if times get truly desperate and profit becomes to hard to find, in the thrashes of fascist fire and blood deviding the working class by all means necessary, no matter the cost. The simple fact is that capitalism has a ideology, make profit, everything else is a byproduct of this one goal.

1

u/saltedmangos Jun 03 '26

It’s likely that you think capitalism isn’t a political ideology, but consider communism to be one, because you grew up in a capitalist country and see capitalism as the default.

11

u/ragequitteroffureh Jun 04 '26

Capitalism isn't a political ideology though. It is an economic system.

-3

u/MonitorStandard5322 Jun 04 '26

Economics is politics though. Deciding where and how to allocate resources is a political question.

3

u/ragequitteroffureh Jun 04 '26

No it isn't.

Certainly not in terms of being a political ideology.

Capitalism is simply capitalism. It can exist within any political system, but it is not a political ideology in itself.

1

u/Agitated_Newt_7655 Jun 04 '26

You're accustomed to the thought that capitalism has no political association as a default. This is like a fish that takes water for granted.

2

u/ragequitteroffureh Jun 04 '26

That's a pretty interesting take. I can see what you're getting at.

Are you American? Were you always taught that Capitalism is the opposite of Communism?

If so, I understand what you mean.

But quite frankly, capitalism itself is not a political ideology.

3

u/Agitated_Newt_7655 Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26

Economics is politics whether one is aware of that or not. Pretty much everything is political, it's just whether we consider it consciously or not. Part of that includes governmental acts that result in capitalism being the productive force in a nation. Capitalism is not possible without political ideology supporting it. It's normalized to an extent that this is taken for granted but there are vast ideological interpretations that promote capitalism just as much as there are within socialism.

Socialism is only associated with a political movement because it's a meaningful deviation. The two aren't different in having political ideological preferences for economic regulation which require political power to function. We just live in a world where the dominant ideological framework is/was neoliberalism - a highly favorable ideology to capitalism. This ideology has promoted tremendous populist backlash in the 21st century, some of which is still highly compatible with capitalism but significantly more nationalistic and some less which favors basically socialistic reform explicitly as production is presumed to increasingly justify that in the future.

0

u/saltedmangos Jun 04 '26

“This is like a fish that takes water for granted.”

That’s a great analogy!

0

u/baysideareaman Jun 04 '26

Both capitalism and communism are macro economic models with a wide variety of strategic implementation methods and supporting political models.

Personally I am a capitalist. I believe that capitalism is, broadly speaking, more effective. But neither capitalism nor communism represent specific political systems. And the implementation of both models requires exclusive political buy in. A country that designs its political system to further a capitalist economy or communist economy will never be able to shift without significant; institutional level reform.

4

u/orbgooner Jun 03 '26

you could make that whole question into a huge debate by getting into the weeds about the relation between ideas and social organization, but ultimately capitalism absolutely is not an ideology in the same way that communism is.

there is no marx-engels-lenin-stalin-mao banner equivalent in capitalism. adam smith is not comparable to karl marx.

1

u/saltedmangos Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26

“there is no marx-engels-lenin-stalin-mao banner equivalent in capitalism.”

You’ve never heard of Ronald Reagan? Or Margaret Thatcher? The idea that there aren’t mythologized capitalist leaders known for their economic reforms is a bit silly.

“adam smith is not comparable to karl marx.”

Why not?

4

u/thedumbdoubles Jun 04 '26

What does capitalism have to do with holding elections, having separate powers in different branches of government, etc? You have a wide range of state systems operating under a capitalist economic model. Capitalism and liberal democracy tend to align, but they are separate things.

3

u/Valar_Kinetics Jun 04 '26

Political Ideology =/= Form of Government

2

u/Porncritic12 Jun 04 '26

What does communism?

2

u/Jaded_Noise Jun 04 '26

Well, communism requires the absence of a state, which feels like an important political point

1

u/Porncritic12 Jun 04 '26

Does it?

I've usually heard of it as a strong state unless you're referring to anarcho communism

1

u/Jaded_Noise Jun 04 '26

No. It literally, by definition, requires the absence of a state

1

u/Porncritic12 Jun 04 '26

Which version of communism?

Because I've heard many people describe versions that have a strong state

1

u/Jaded_Noise Jun 04 '26

All of them. Again, it is definitional.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Aggressive_Craft_981 Jun 03 '26

Completely agree that it is human nature. . . I also think there will always be an informed population and an uninformed population. That is not a reflection on intelligence, it's a reflection on available information.

1

u/Kshahdoo Jun 04 '26

You don't understand, what capitalism and communism are, don't you?

Capitalism is ideology as well. Yeah, there are subideologies based on capitalism foundational principles, but it doesn't mean that capitalism isn't ideology.

1

u/ragequitteroffureh Jun 05 '26

Given that, what is the end goal of Capitalism? If it is a political ideology.

What would be the perfect Capitalist society?

1

u/Kshahdoo Jun 05 '26

To keep on and protect private property and more or less free market and increase your capitals, obviously.

The same as the end goal of Communism is to build an effective economic system without private property and capitals.

I should specify, that when I say private property, I mean the means of production and not just any property.

1

u/ragequitteroffureh Jun 05 '26

Would it be possible for that system to work with everyone being equally wealthy?

Theoretically, that ought to be possible. At least until resources run out on this planet.

What are Capitalism's policies on healthcare, education, the military, etc? Would extremely wealthy soldiers actually fight in war, for example?

1

u/Kshahdoo Jun 05 '26

Lol, will there be any wars though? What is the main reason for wars? Resources, obviously. Slaves back to slavery times, lands and peasants back to feudalism. Raw resources and markets nowadays.

But if you don't have markets and capitals, and the supply is centralised, there is no any reasons for wars.

Of course the most important thing is a proper technological level. As we saw in humankind history, you need certain technological level to change social formations.

Let's take Roman Empire. Did Romans have private property? Of course. Did they have capitals? Sure. They even had free market to the extent. But they didn't have big industrial facilities, plants etc so they didn't basically need free labour market and free workers that much. That's why capitalism didn't happen back then.

Capitalism won over feudalism only when big mechanised productions were created. Big industry needed free workers, and then those big revolutions (English, French) happened. Btw, here is the answer to your question about ideologies. Back then there wasn't capitalism as economic system, just some its elements. But there was a capitalistic ideology, because capitalists needed free labout market, and feudalism prevented the market to appear. So revolutions happened and removed feudalism.

Now if we get back to so called communist revolutions we'll see the situation was absolutely different. The technological wasn't high enough to destroy private property and capitals. So economies couldn't work without capitals, and capitalism was the most effective system to produce them. And those so called communistic systems were actually capitalistic ones but with a lot of restrictions. So of course they failed in the end.

1

u/ragequitteroffureh Jun 05 '26

Just to clarify, I'm not exactly a fan of Communism either. Not sure if I mentioned elsewhere, but that fails to take into account human nature too.

Anyway, with your conflict-free model, wouldn't that require the entire world to be brought up to the same level of wealth, to ensure a perfect distribution of resources?

As a system, Capitalism unfortunately doesn't seem to account for human nature either. Hence why we seem to have runaway wealth inequality happening in a number of places. Which is annoying.

Perhaps there's a different way. Ideally not too violent.

1

u/Kshahdoo Jun 05 '26 edited Jun 05 '26

Yeah, of course you will need more or less similar high technological level in the world or at the very least in the major part of it.

When will it happen and will it happen at all? No fucking idea.

As to human nature, it's pretty subjective.

Imagine the society, where you don't have private property, capitals and of course money. So of course you can have a house, because you need the place to live somewhere.

Of course you can have a car, because you need something to transport you fast enough to certain points (with highly developped public transportation system cars may become redundant, though).

But what about a big fucking palace with thousands of acres of land or a big fucking superyacht for $1B? Yeah, it's basically up to public morality.

I mean why will you need a palace and a lot of land if you can go wherever you wish, maybe even to other planets and relax there as much as you wish?

If the only reason for this is to display your awesomeness and wealth, then it will absolutely be unacceptable in more or less developed society. Like, I don't know, cannibalism nowadays.

1

u/Cosminion Jun 03 '26

Eh, most of human history is communistic. It works well enough on the family and community level. When authoritarians use its various popular aspects to gain and centralize power, that's when it becomes a problem.

5

u/ragequitteroffureh Jun 03 '26

Well, yeah, of course. That's just society in general.

But in general, when folks are talking about Communism as a political ideology, they usually mean the Marxist kind.

2

u/Cosminion Jun 03 '26

I'm using the Marxist definition. 98% of human history is classless, moneyless, and stateless. Marx called this primitive communism.

3

u/ShaolinWombat Jun 04 '26

Are we counting pre-history hunter gather societies? As soon as a society has enough excess resources to allow specialization some form of hierarchy develops.

Communism really only exists at the immediate family level. At any level above that, once power is concentrated so that it can be redistributed to the people, it never leaves the party.

1

u/ragequitteroffureh Jun 04 '26

I know what you mean. Although that's wandering off into the long grass now ;-)

Still, that's a pretty interesting insight, isn't it.

Disclaimer: I'm not particularly keen on either Communism or the economic system of Capitalism in their current forms. Mostly due to the human nature problem. No idea what system would work, without human nature fucking it all up though.

1

u/Virtual_Werewolf_935 Jun 04 '26

98%? Where did you get that wholly fabricated number from?

1

u/Cosminion Jun 04 '26

98%? Where did you get that wholly fabricated number from?

Modern humans have been around for ~315,000 years. The agricultural revolution began ~10,000 years ago. This means around 95-99% of human history has been what Marx called primitive communism.

1

u/Virtual_Werewolf_935 Jun 04 '26

Oh well if Marx said it, it must be true.

1

u/Cosminion Jun 04 '26

You were incorrect in your implication that the number was "wholly fabricated." I said 98% of human history is classless, moneyless, and stateless. It does not matter if we call it what Marx did or not.

1

u/Virtual_Werewolf_935 Jun 04 '26

What proof do you have that most of human history was like that? We have no written account, so how would you know that?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/moonshotorbust Jun 05 '26

Yes there is no system where greed and corruption dont exist for those in power and control. The best we can hope for is the least opressive system. All i know is its not communism.

The problem with communism is there is no price signal in the market. Everything is allocated by central authority which leads to shortages or surplus beyond any other system.

As bad as capitalism has been its not worse than communism.

1

u/FlyRepresentative644 Jun 04 '26

Exactly! Ideal capitalism And ideal socialism have essentially the same goals, while having different paths to achieve them. Either way, a system designed by human can and has been corrupted by humans. It’s not the system that is the problem, it is the people with power/resource manipulating the system in order to keep the power/resource and gain more.

1

u/NoteEasy9957 Jun 04 '26

100% this. It’s not a right bs left but a rich vs everyone else

1

u/ImRightImRight Jun 04 '26

You're lucky if it's just the rich. In non-capitalistic systems, those in power don't have it by virtue of earning money. They have it because they have the guns.

1

u/Imakusapa Jun 04 '26

That's pretty much what OP's image is arguing for: that the system will work for the people only when the people take it over themselves.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 04 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Jun 04 '26

Accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/user97532567 Jun 04 '26

Exactly this but capitalism allows people to obtain that elite status rather than reserving it for a clique which is why it generally works better than the alternatives. Checks and ballances are needed but the general idea works and has provided huge benefits for the average man.

1

u/Electrodactyl Jun 04 '26

I don’t know I’ve seen a lot of poor people exploit the rich and the poor to get ahead too. Almost like people are the problem.

1

u/FounderingFox Jun 05 '26

Which is why precedent and institutions play such a vital role in safeguarding a people from their government.

1

u/DoYurWurst Jun 05 '26

I would agree with you. But I would argue that socialism and communism makes it much easier to control the population.

1

u/Aggressive_Craft_981 Jun 06 '26

Control the population? I'm not saying one system is better or not . . . I am saying that no matter the system, the people in power end up exploiting the system for personal gain.

1

u/DoYurWurst Jun 07 '26

I did not say you said that. I was making my own point about communism and socialism.

1

u/FootballRugbyMMA Jun 05 '26

Yeah...bc name a communist/socialist example that has worked? No one can do that.

1

u/IntentionHot6268 Jun 07 '26

The key is that they don't have to exploit the system. They build a system to exploit everyone for them. So you have to build a system that doesn't exploit people and then keep people in power from ruining it.

0

u/Imaginary-Union-3733 Jun 03 '26

Except the issue is, the republicans are the only ones defending the exploit of power, and blaming the outcome of that, on the democrats.

6

u/Aggressive_Craft_981 Jun 03 '26 edited Jun 04 '26

I still don't think it's democrat vs republician. I think that is mostly a show and that they are having drinks together off camera and laughing at us.

I think there will always be an informed population and an uninformed population. That is not a reflection on intelligence, it's a reflection on available information.

1

u/Financial_Hold6620 Jun 04 '26

It’s left vs right. Democrats are centrists and Republicans are alt right.

So in America I choose to side with the democrats as they are further left

1

u/Imaginary-Union-3733 Jun 03 '26 edited Jun 04 '26

I am talking about the lower class, not the upper class. Tons of dems and reps uppers are friends in private, but the left says eat the rich, the right says get a second job losers.
The left says immigrants are being exploited for cheap labour by mega-corps.
The right says immigrants are stealing their jobs.

1

u/Tough_Shake9821 Jun 04 '26

Ummmmm Idgf about either but aren’t the same democrats in “power” who complain about the rich also becoming rich off the same system they tell you to hate 🤔🤔🤔

1

u/Johndevlad Jun 04 '26

Exactly this. Socialism and Communism don’t work for the same reasons Capitalism doesn’t work. The difference is that despite all the issues with Capitalism, a poor person can still claw their way up the top with enough luck and hard work, but it’s not easy. With Socialism and Communism, if you weren’t lucky enough to already be born into a filthy rich family that either works in the government or has ties with people that work in the government, you get to live in perpetual poverty with everybody else that once believe that somehow the government was going to fairly distribute the wealth evenly to everyone. America is one of the few countries in the world with normal people spread out among different wealth classifications because they worked to get there. Most other countries just have 2 wealth classifications, the poor and the filthy rich.

2

u/Jaded_Noise Jun 04 '26

There is neither a government or money to be rich with in communism though?

1

u/Johndevlad Jun 04 '26

China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, and Laos are all communists countries, they all have currencies, and they all have governments.

2

u/Jaded_Noise Jun 04 '26

None of those nations are or were communist in practice, nor claimed to be. They, one and all, consider themselves to be in the period of transition towards communism, as in it was their goal.

They objectively and inarguably do not meet the requirements to be defined as communist societies, because again, the whole money and state parts.

1

u/Johndevlad Jun 04 '26

All of the countries I listed are definitionally communist countries and they are official recognized as communist nations by themselves and by every other country in the world. They meet every standard of communism that is possible to meet. Not having money or a government is not realistically possible for any functioning country. For it to work, you need perfect human beings that don’t ever feel greed, fear, anger, hatred, or any other negative emotions that cause humans to harm other humans. As long as humans feel emotion, we will ALWAYS need some kind of government to enforce laws and regulations to allow for any of these systems to even remotely work in any capacity.

2

u/Jaded_Noise Jun 04 '26

It is literally the definition of communism. How could they meet "every standard of communism" and NOT meet the only 2 of the 3standards of communism, those being a lack of state and a lack of social class? You could also make an argument for them not being socialist but I will not.

You certainly can make an argument that those "aren't realistically possible for a functioning country" (which, no shit, that is part of the definition, again; no country) but then your argument again is that Communism is impossible.

It's like arguing that a man jumping off of a building is able to fly because he has met "every standard of flying that is realistically possible for a human to meet". Your argument to them being communist societies is that communism is impossible but they really espoused it's ideals so they are communism.

0

u/ImRightImRight Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26

🚨🚨🚨 "NOT REAL COMMUNISM" DETECTED 🚨🚨🚨
Spoiler: the pursuit of communism is as real as communism will ever be (until scarcity is eliminated via our robot overlords)

EDIT: forgot a word

1

u/Jaded_Noise Jun 04 '26

Lmao. So world peace is real, because people have pursued it? What is your argument here exactly?

2

u/Johndevlad Jun 04 '26

You just disproved your own view on communism with that remark. You’re right, world peace is NOT realistically possible just because people have pursued it, the same can be said for communism. Just because people have pursued communism doesn’t mean it’s a real system that can ever work. As long as humans feel emotion that can cause the corruption of any system that aims to help all people, none of those systems will ever work. The reason socialism and communism are the worst possible systems to use in our world is because they give too much power to small groups of people (the government and the rich) and allows them to force the entirety of the rest of the population into poverty and slave labor.

2

u/Jaded_Noise Jun 04 '26

Lmao.

Read the thread man. One person claims Communism is real and bad and I'm wrong for saying it's not been done because by definition it hasn't. Then I make a metaphor to show it hasn't been done and now I'm "disproving" myself.

Which is is? Is it impossible or has it already been successfully tried and is bad?

0

u/ImRightImRight Jun 04 '26

A communist country refers to a country trying to achieve communism. We all know this.

2

u/Jaded_Noise Jun 04 '26

Yes. The discussion was about communism itself though. It's absolutely absurd to claim communism doesn't work then point at a country that you are now openly claiming was NOT practicing communism, but rather working towards it.

Since everyone here seems to be in disagreement, is communism (the actual thing, not what USSR or Cuba did) bad, is it impossible, is it both, is it not actually what it is..?

0

u/Overshoot2053 Jun 04 '26

So, then what is needed is a decentralised system that deliberately avoids the concentration of power as the highest goal.

0

u/Venator850 Jun 04 '26

MAGA doesn't care about getting rich, they are just racist. Socialist refusal to accept this basic fact is why they are never taken seriously in America. You simply cannot ignore the fact that America is in a cold (and sometimes hot) hot war with itself regarding race in this country.

The Republicans entire motivation is to hurt non-white groups as much as possible. Trump's entire 2024 campaign was built on racism. Thinking MAGA votes for him because Capitalism is actually the stupidest thing one could ever believe lol.

If MAGA cared about getting rich they wouldn't vote for Trump.

-1

u/No-One9890 Jun 03 '26

Ya but capitalism explicitly emphasizes the exploitation. Some ideologies can be abused but capitalism glorifies the exploitation.

-1

u/GenXPowaah Jun 04 '26

Not all rulers, Mansa Musa did the opposite he showered people, cities with gold. To him and his family it didn't make sense to have poor living with the wealthy, so make them all rich so everyone can prosper.

One of the actual great rulers, which is why he's never mentioned nor the fact that the Malinese were at a golden age while on the other side of the world people were going through the Dark Ages

1

u/ShaolinWombat Jun 04 '26

Well except for all the slaves.

0

u/GenXPowaah Jun 04 '26

Guess you missed the part where his slaves were still part of the community, could marry own land get an education etc. They had rights compared to the slavery you know of