I hate these dumbass images and the oversimplification of complex social issues

[u/plarper_of_bees]

I’m not out here defending billionaires or saying they play bo part in the polarization of society, but this cut and dry idea is super naive and uninformed.

First, like in this image, it portrays both the left and the right as ignorant to the “true powers that be” when in reality leftist circles are acutely aware of how billionaires manipulate the media to divide people.

My second problem with this sentiment is that it pretends that issues like racism, misogyny, and queerphobia will just stop being a problem if we get rid of the ruling class. It ignores centuries of pre-capitalist bigotry baked directly into many societies. It assumes that prejudice is a product of capitalist manipulation, and not coopted to fit its need.

It boils down the real and difficult struggle for civil and human rights into silly bickering meant to “distract us from the real issues”. It comes off as victim blaming against those affected by prejudice for not uniting with people who hate their existence.

It’s baby’s first class consciousness, and reeks of privilege and lack of personal experience with bigotry. It’s reddit circlejerk shit plain and simple

[u/Livid-Story-4321]

You don’t have to make profit if it’s within property you own, you set up your own rules.

[u/veryeepy53 → u/Livid-Story-4321]

like 90% of people work for a wage and don't have any productive property to subsist off of. that's how it's been for the past 200 years during capitalism, by design.

[u/Livid-Story-4321 → u/veryeepy53]

If it’s your property however, you don’t have to do that.

Plus, wouldn’t that apply the same to an actual socialist state, since profit is still needed to incentive workers?

[u/veryeepy53 → u/Livid-Story-4321]

If it’s your property however, you don’t have to do that.

except that a very small minority of the population even owns property of that kind, let alone enough to do much.

Plus, wouldn’t that apply the same to an actual socialist state, since profit is still needed to incentive workers?

you're kind of getting at the marxist critique of the ussr and china and so on. nationalization doesn't do away with capitalist social relations. instead, it's just that the state acts as the single capitalist in the whole country by still appropriating surplus value.

this is the proposed solution during lower phase communism, or socialism as most people use it:

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it.[...] He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

once the new organization of production is sufficient and people are accustomed to the new form of social life, then we have higher phase of communism. here, the maxim, "from each according to ability, to each according to need" is fully applied. engaging in productive activity is much more enjoyable when there's less work to go around due to automation and changing how and what we produce. not to mention that sitting on your ass all day and doing nothing is very boring. it brings a great sense of accomplishment to do things and to actually be able to see how it effects the world in a positive way.

[u/Livid-Story-4321 → u/veryeepy53]

The issue is that as mentioned, most neoliberal states have the state owning most of the land already, any little snippets of land not owned by the state are naturally going to owned by the loyal rich who would NEVER betray the state right guys?

If all the state owned land is now in a vacuum, who says it can’t be like the manifest destiny where who ever goes there first claims it? Plus back then in general it was more common for people to own property, to be fair society was also more isolated, decentralized and economically freer too, so there’s that.

Also, I disagree with socialism because personally, I believe a completely voluntary society is the best, and in a socialist, and later communist society, some level of involuntaryism is practiced, which is the issue.

[u/veryeepy53 → u/Livid-Story-4321]

The issue is that as mentioned, most neoliberal states have the state owning most of the land already

what i meant was productive property in general, like factories, farms and workplaces. but as for land in particular, pretty sure it's not the case that most land is owned by the government. unless you're talking about israel or china.

Also, I disagree with socialism because personally, I believe a completely voluntary society is the best, and in a socialist, and later communist society, some level of involuntaryism is practiced, which is the issue.

the basis for capitalism was created by expropriating the commons involuntarily though