this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
904 points (98.8% liked)

Memes

49349 readers
1540 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 116 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

American try to care one iota for your fellow man or really anyone other than yourself challenge (impossible):

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 53 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

During covid, going to a rural area in the US really got to me. The population is so individualistic / freedom-brained / "i do whatever I want all the time", that their grandmothers all dying meant nothing to them. I got mine keeps meaning smaller and smaller groups of people.

[–] yucandu@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Which is surprising because up here in Canada, the socialism started with the farmers. And it's still going on with coop feed and grain silos and harvester sharing. Farmers don't let other farmers starve, in Canada.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

That's not really Socialism, though. Segments of an economy cannot be Socialist or Capitalist by themselves, just like an arm cannot be a human. They all exist in their contexts. A worker cooperative in an economy dominated by private Capital is not an instance of Socialism, as it depends on the broader Capitalist system.

Socialism, in reality, refers to a broader economy where public ownership is primary, while Capitalism refers to a broader economy where private ownership is primary. All Socialist societies have had public and private Capital, and all Capitalist societies have had public and private Capital, it matters most which one has the power.

I recommend reading my post here on common problems people run into when determining Modes of Production.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] yucandu@lemmy.world 93 points 2 weeks ago (13 children)

Lisa's only mistake was saying yes.

Just do every single thing in socialism, but change every single word. Call it Americanism.

Proletariat? No, just "worker".

Bourgeoisie? No, just "elites".

Capital? "Stuff". Like how in baseball they say a pitcher's got good "stuff". Use your human stuff.

Class Consciousness - "common sense".

Dialectical Materialism - Idk I'm still trying to figure out wtf that one means.

[–] Confidant6198@lemmy.ml 24 points 2 weeks ago

Dialectical materialism -> Scientific materialism to distinguish it from the common usage of the world "materialism"

[–] pcalau12i@lemmygrad.ml 16 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

You people have good luck with this? I haven't. I don't find that you can just "trick" people into believing in socialism by changing the words. The moment if becomes obvious you're criticizing free markets and the rich and advocating public ownership they will catch on.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Correct, and it even risks supporting PatSoc movements like the American Communist Party (not to be confused with the CPUSA), also known as "MAGA Communism." Essentially Imperialism combined with Communist aesthetics.

Being honest with what you want and why has a far better track record, we see this in Socialist revolutions and in mg own personal experience with outreach.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 weeks ago (14 children)

Historically, this just doesn't work, and it even risks supporting PatSoc movements like the American Communist Party (not to be confused with the CPUSA), also known as "MAGA Communism." Essentially Imperialism combined with Communist aesthetics.

In the lead-up to the Russian Revolution, there was disagreement over the necessity of reading theory. The SRs thought it was unneccessary, and got in the way of unity. Lenin and the Bolsheviks disagreed, as theory informs correct practice. The SRs became a footnotez and the Bolsheviks succeeded in establishing the world's first Socialist state. One of Lenin's most fanous lines, from What is to be done? is "without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary practice."

As studying theory is necessary, people will realize you're repackaging Socialism. This will backfire, and people will realize they've been tricked. This will hurt the movement.

As for Dialectical Materialism, in a nutshell it's the philosophical backbone of Marxism. It's an analytical tool, focusing on studying material reality as it exists in context and in motion through time, as well as their contradictions. If you want an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list that will teach you the fundamentals, I have one here that I made.

[–] afronaut@slrpnk.net 7 points 2 weeks ago (13 children)

Personally, I’ve strived to adhere to the Einstein quote:

If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.

This not only applies to theory but language in general. If you, an English speaker, wants to ally with someone who only speaks Mandarin, the two of you will need to figure out how to understand simple shared concepts first (“water”, “car”, “help”).

Theory is the same. I don’t think we should completely do away with the proper verbiage. But, I do think we need to figure out how to translate our message in more ways than just language— I’m talking cultural. Because, right now, there are a lot of working class Americans who have been convinced that capitalist exploitation is American culture.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 69 points 2 weeks ago

about what youd expect for a country thats been the global epicenter for anticommunist propaganda.

[–] wurzelgummidge@lemmy.ml 54 points 2 weeks ago

I can't remember where I copied this from originally but it seems pertinent here

Americans are, of course, the most thoroughly and passively indoctrinated people on earth. they know next to nothing as a rule about their own history, or the histories of other nations, or the histories of the various social movements that have risen and fallen in the past, and they certainly know nothing of the complexities and contradictions comprised within words like ‘socialism’ and ‘capitalism.’

Chiefly, what they have been trained not to know or even suspect is that, in many ways, they enjoy far fewer freedoms, and suffer under a more intrusive centralized state, than do the citizens of countries with more vigorous social-democratic institutions.

This is is at once the most comic and most tragic aspect of the excitable alarm that talk of social democracy or democratic socialism can elicit on these shores.

An enormous number of Americans have been persuaded to believe that they are freer in the abstract than, say, Germans or Danes precisely because they possess far fewer freedoms in the concrete.

They are far more vulnerable to medical and financial crisis, far more likely to receive inadequate health coverage, far more prone too irreparable insolvency, far more unprotected against predatory creditors, far more subject to income inequality, and so forth, while effectively paying more in tax (when one figures in federal, state, local and sales taxes, and then compounds those by all the expenditures that in this country, as almost nowhere else, their taxes do not cover).

One might think that a people who once rebelled against the mightiest empire on earth on the principle of no taxation without representation would not meekly accept taxation without adequate government services.

But we accept what we have become used to, I suppose. Even so, one has to ask, what state apparatus in the “free” world could be more powerful and tyrannical than the one that taxes its citizens while providing no substantial civic benefits in return, solely in order to enrich a piratically overinflated military-industrial complex and to ease the tax burdens of the immensely wealthy.

[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 33 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

Socialism in america only exists for corporations. "Hey bankers! Screwed up again? Here's more money to play with."

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (7 children)

I appreciate the sentiment, but the public sector supporting the private is not "socialism." Socialism describes an economic formation where public ownership is primary in an economy, ie where large firms are publicly owned and controlled. Segments of an economy cannot be Socialist or Capitalist just like an arm cannot be a human, it can only exist in the context of the whole.

Socialism, in reality, refers to a broader economy where public ownership is primary, while Capitalism refers to a broader economy where private ownership is primary. All Socialist societies have had public and private Capital, and all Capitalist societies have had public and private Capital, it matters most which one has the power.

I recommend reading my post here on common problems people run into when determining Modes of Production.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] miss_demeanour@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

Meanwhile, socialist Norway's wealth fund could maintain everyone's standard of living for 400 years if they stopped working right now.

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 53 points 2 weeks ago (42 children)

norway isnt socialist. they just excel at exporting capitalism's issues to the third world.

[–] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 17 points 2 weeks ago

of course not, you can bet that "wealth fund" is invested in institutions that leech of the global south.

[–] bloubz@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I upvoted for the first sentence, don't know enough about Norway to have a critical opinion on the second one. It does sound like imperialism though. When they don't any more resources to exploit nationaly, capitalists must go elsewhere

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

for the second part: i'm not well versed in norway's specifics but northern europe in general uses brazil as a resource colony, i know norway engages in oil extrativism here, in some delicate areas of the amazon rainforest that really shouldnt be disturbed right now.

i'm willing to bet good money they do it to many many other regions too.

load more comments (40 replies)
[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 39 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Hmmm, interesting. But what if we gave it all to one guy?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Whenever people say this they neglect to point out that all the money came from selling oil.

[–] miss_demeanour@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 2 weeks ago

They forget to point out that only dumbfuck yanks would consider Norway to be socialist, so the comment, in a meme community, is misleading from the get-go.

[–] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

thats not something to boast about, it tells how deeply embedded the nordic socdems are in financial parasitism aka imperialism.

living off interests is parasitism

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 weeks ago

Norway funds its safety nets off of super-exploitation of the Global South, ie Imperialism. It is firmly Capitalist and in no way Socialist, private property is the primary driving aspect of Norway's economy, the higher standard of living comes from acting as a Landlord in country form.

[–] Dengalicious@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 2 weeks ago

Norway is not socialist in the least

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Xiisadaddy@lemmygrad.ml 19 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

I live in the USA and its so bad i just cant interact with most people. They are basically entirely vibes based. They dont research anything if they hear a new claim they decide if its true based on if they feel like its true. You can literally show them evidence and most will be like "nah thats bs". I made a comment on 小红书 recently about how 54% of americans read below a 6th grade level and my replies are FULL of americans saying "uh i can read" .... can you really?

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 19 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

Don't make me laugh, it's not socialism! it's bro-ism, 'cause, I got you bro. If everyone got their bros and we all bros then we can do absolutely anything bro!

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 2 weeks ago (38 children)

Wait, isn't socialism all about class solidarity? "Working together regardless of class to fight a common enemy" sounds more like nationalism where at the end the upper class profits most. Unless we are talking about a classless society but that's not "regardless of class" but "with no class distinction" which sounds very similar when I think about it.

[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 11 points 2 weeks ago

Sounds more like social democracy, which can include managed capitalism and cooperation between workers and owners. To a degree.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 weeks ago

Socialism is about making the working class the ruling class. It is explicitly about oppressing the bourgeois class, which is itself the current ruling class oppressing the working (and other) classes. The idea is to take the means of production and run it for ourselves rather than the profit of a class defined by merely owning factories, buildings, tools, etc.

The cartoon may be confused.

load more comments (36 replies)
[–] AcidicBasicGlitch@lemm.ee 13 points 2 weeks ago

She's got a work on her sales pitch. "Probably one of the greatest... Oh it's not for you, it's more of a Shelbyville idea..."

[–] Commiunism@beehaw.org 8 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

"if we all work together regardless of class" collaborationism is bourgeoisie propaganda and is not tolerated here, Comrade. Please face the wall.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›