Communism is when capitalism

Every single fucking time: THIS IS THE FUTURE UNDER COMMUSOCIALMARXISM!
endless pictures of current capitalism conditions, usually centered around homeless people
Yeah, it sure is a good thing we have capitalism to make sure that every person is taken care of and nobody gets fed to the orphan grinding machine.
- I knew this die-hard conservative MAGA guy, and we kept having this argument. He would constantly point out the homeless camps in California, blaming it on their "Socialist policies". I kept pointing out that California has more billionaires than any other state, has the 5th largest economy in the world, and if that's not the model of a successful Capitalist state, then what is? His answer was Texas. I felt like bashing my head against a brick wall.
  That dude was nuts, but at one point I wore him down and got him to admit that CEOs are useless at best, and evil at worst. And I swear to God, he said "yeah, companies should just get rid of CEOs and be owned by the workers who vote on how to run the company." My jaw hit the fucking floor. When I pulled up the Wikipedia page for Socialism, he completely reversed course. CEOs were suddenly very necessary and good again.
  He was so close.
  
  I would never let him live that admission down.
  Every day I'd be reminding him about what cognitive dissonance is, and that he was all for a policy change until he learned that the belief he held and was ACTIVELY ADVOCATING FOR aligns with an ideology that someone who makes a lot more money than he does told him to hate.

Pathetic how most commenters are arguing why communism is bad and not why capitalism is bad, when you live literally in late stage capitalism / fascism.
Every horrific thing happening under capitalism / fascism never seems to matter.
- A good way to view fascism is as Capitalism donning its alter-ego to protect its image while it resorts to brutal means to protect itself. It's Capitalism in different circumstances, not a unique economic system, which is why its riddled with contradictory mechanisms. Its always there as a tool for Capitalism to employ, it's Capitalism in decay.
- It's a fine point you make, which communist countries (which aren't a dictatorship in a trenchcoat) out there are doing particularly well?
  
  The currently Socialist countries governed by Communist parties are the PRC, Cuba, DPRK, Vietnam, and Laos, and all are doing pretty well if we take into consideration harsh economic sanctions and embargoes or other unique characteristics inflicted upon them from the outside. Out of all of them, the PRC is doing particularly well and is the most developed, though Vietnam is rising very quickly, especially thanks to an excellent response to COVID that allowed manufacturing to shift towards it for production.
- Capitalism is not fascism, communism is fascism.
  
  Fascism is Capitalism in more dire circumstances. It arises when Capital needs to defend the existing order via brutal means, it dons a mask and pretends its something else, despite the underlying mechanisms being the same. Fascism is Capitalism in decay.
  Communism is entirely different from Capitalism, including fascism.

The USSR was the prime example for what happens when communism fails. The USA is the prime example of what happens when capitalism fails. Many of their mistakes are mirror images of each other.
- It's almost like picking one extreme or the other isn't always the best idea
  
  Or it's almost like allowing greedy people to have all the power results in everyone else suffering. The "extremes" aren't necessarily the problem, the failure to mitigate powers that want everything for themselves is the problem.
  Personally, I think capitalism relies on self interest, competition, and rational and informed consumers. Self interest leads to anticompetitive practices, regulatory capture, and monopolies. Informed consumers cannot exist because there is too much information for everyone to know enough about everything. I can't be an expert in the latest computer technology, modern medicine and medical practices, and most effective and efficient farming techniques and still have enough time to make a living... and I'd still be ignorant about sustainable fishing, transportation, and so on. There are entire industries out there that are supposed to help people makes informed decisions and so many of them have been corrupted themselves.
  Socialism (at least most of its forms) focuses on democracy and quality of life. It can still be susceptible to concentrations of power in the hands of people who don't value those things... so we'd need to create checks and balances against that. Honestly, I'd be fairly confident that even the US checks and balances (which are failing catastrophically right now) would work better if no individual or organization was allowed to exploit others so much that they could accumulate a billion+ dollars. With that, they could spend hundreds of millions on elections, bribe voters, and threaten politicians with million+ dollar opposition campaigns of they don't submit... which sounds kind of familiar.
- Almost like the real struggle is between powerful greedy cunts and the poor no matter what system is used to fight them... Though one thing is for certain: capitalism further empowers the rich while socialism/communism are supposed to fight against their further acquisitions.
  Everyone defending capitalism really sound like serfs trying to protect their king just because, "he fought off the barbarians once!".
- I don't think we can call all of the Soviet Union a failure. There were many problems and struggles faced by it, but many of these problems are ones that other AES states have learned from as a lesson, while keeping some of what made it such a progressive movement for the working class to begin with. Free, high quality healthcare, education, and childcare, democratization of the economy and not just government, dramatic reductions in wealth inequality and improvements in production, all showed some of the major benefits of a centrally planned and worker-focused economy.
  Of course, it did collapse. It had numerous issues, especially later on as liberal reforms worked against the centrally planned economy. Planning was by hand in an increasingly computerized world, the millitary expenses from the Cold War siphoned resources, the economy was more publicly owned than necessary (Marx believed you need to develop out of private property relations, ie the NEP should have been reintroduced after World War II when Heavy Industry had been developed enough to tackle it), and more.
  Overall, we can't simply dismiss it outright, it serves as a very valuable lesson on both good and bad, and anyone building Socialism needs to study it rigorously.

There’s a whole social psychology regarding perception management. If you want this idea to catch and snag more people, then substitute “the working class” for communism.
This also sets home the correct idea that we are in a class war right now. Most rules that don’t favor working class are intended to funnel more money up instead of to the people making the work happen.

Pure versions of each have their flaws. Mixed-economics yields the highest quality of life according to the top ranking nations on the World Happiness Report. Nordic nations have the blueprint. We just need to adopt it.
- Nordic nations is still exploitive capitalism.
  
  And socialist countries had exploitative socialism. I think realistically it's best to try and find a system with least exploitation balanced with best quality of life for the people.
- There are a few problems here.
  All economies are "mixed," ergo it isn't a meaningful distinction. What is more useful is recognizing which aspect of the economy is the principle, ie which has the real dominant power, over large firms and key industries. Socialism is when the public sector is the principle aspect, Capitalism is when private ownership is the principle aspect. That's why the PRC is Socialist, and the Nordic countries are Capitalist.
  Judging which system is correct purely by looking to which countries have the highest happiness scores is myopic. We could use the same logic to say that Jeff Bezos has the most comfortable life, so we should all copy him. The problem is that we can't. The Nordics fund their safety nets through Imperialism, ie super-exploiting the Global South, and because Private Ownership has domination over the state, worker protections and safety nets have been gradually sliding.
  This is why having a good knowledge of theory and taking everything within a large context, rather than with harsh boundaries, is important to draw correct conclusions.
  
  I'll never understand people who insist China is 'State Capitalism' but Nordic countries are ideal socialism, somehow.
  
  May I ask an honest question? Is your account run by 5 people? How do you find time to write thorough, well written responses to so many posts? We don't always agree ideologically, but I really respect your methods.
  
  The Nordics fund their safety nets through Imperialism, ie super-exploiting the Global South
  Finnish imperialism 💪🏼 Not sure what sort of imperialism Finland for example is doing that for example China isn't. We are super-exploiting them in the same way, as in doing trade and having our companies operate in those countries.
- Nordic nations have the blueprint.
  They may be doing certain things right but do other totally wrong like forced conscription. Keep also in mind that they exploit third world countries like everyone else, their goods are made in china.
  
  I'm not sure what other sensible alternative there is for Finland than conscription. You can't get around the geographical issues so you have to have some sort of sensible and credible defence. That's why it has a very wide approval, even when the moral issues of it are recognized. NATO seemed promising as a guarantor of safety, until it lost that credibility (and Finland got in a bit unwillingly, after some recent events). Voluntary military was what Sweden did and it didn't work well for them.
  Actually funnily enough people are surprisingly supportive of expanding the conscription to include women. And that's on equality grounds, which to many who abhor the idea of forced conscription must seem pretty wild.
  
  I would happily join the military in a country that actually cared for me. Thats something worth fighting for.
- if Nordic countries had to stand on their own, they would collapse, they can only get by because they're the beneficiaries of a global system of worker exploitation.
- The flaw is humans; we'll corrupt any system.
  
  I would say it's the dominant western neoliberal culture that accepts corruption as an "Oh well what can you do" type thing. Not all cultures are so accepting of corruption. We need to start treating corruption as great of a sin as murder or pedophilia, perhaps more so.
  
  You’re not wrong. Some systems are still better than others though.
  
  We will also de-corrupt and fix any of them.
- The fact that this still got 14 downvotes. Wow...
  Edit: Also these BrainInABox and Cowbee communist apologists are really begging for a block or even a ban. Absolutely despicable. Might they be bots or trolls of somekind? They seem to have an awful lot of time on their hands.
  
  Just a bit of background, given that you're on a 12 day old account, Lemmy in general has a lot of Communists of various types, for a number of reasons:
  The lead developers are all Communists
  Lemmy is an anti-capitalist response to Reddit in design, it's an attempt to cover for the failings of Reddit resulting from its profit-driven nature
  Choosing Lemmy over Reddit requires some degree of ideological conviction, as Reddit is far more popular to begin with.
  As for myself, I'm not a troll. I am a Communist, specifically a Marxist-Leninist, I even made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list. Further, this community in particular, c/LateStageCapitalism, is run by Communists and the express purpose is to critique Capitalism from the Left, I'm not breaking any rules by following the purpose of the Comm.
  Hope that helps!
  
  You are in a fucking communist space. It will be you getting the ban

It isn't the boogyman you need to worry about, it's the bougie man.

Y'all have brainwashed me over the last decade. I'm thankful TBH.
I used to be a staunch ancap libertarian and now I'm a hardcore socialist bordering on communist.
I mean, Trump's first term also had a lot to do with it. That was a shit show.
It's crazy how much a grown ass man can change deeply held beliefs when forced to re-evaluate reality.
- Join us commies! 😜
- Its working great for China. My Baba stock fell 50% after the ceo criticized government regulation. But I'm told he was a greedy capitalist and it was for the greater good.

Kirby would never say that!
He would say poyo

Kirby does have experience with Marx.
- Ia ?

Every political or economic system I know of could work quite well, if all the participants of that system would come with the required charactetistics.
Capitalism could work, if no one was a reckless greedy asshole.
Communism could work, if no one was a powerhungry reckless asshole.
Democracy could work, if no one was a reckless powerhungry greedy asshole. Heck, even a dictatorship could work, if the dictator was benevolent.
All of those systems are doomed to be exploited because they don't take humans as they are and try to make the best of them, but because they always require some ideal circumstances, which are hard to achieve and are in practise not sufficiently widespread.
There are modifications to all of those systems, to make them work better. For example, humanistic capitalism. But still, there is no perfect system yet.
It seems that the best we can do is to create a system with self-correcting mechanisms incorporated, such that all the good and the bad of humans are taken into consideration, nurturing the good and reducing the bad. Democracy comes close to that, as it allows, discusses, demands and implements change and makes this process accessible for everyone. Still, it has it's own pitfalls and I am not sure whether a single democracy exists that actually works well.
- Hierarchy must be limited to mitigate greedy assholes from gaining power. Capitalism is inherently hierarchical. Seems like some form of anarcho-socialism or democratic socialism would work best. And the democracy part should be built in a way that prevents one party or group from gaining too much power; using stuff like ranked-choice voting or proportional representation.

How can communism deal with the food per total human issue without people managing that based on their own effort and resources and self-determinstion? Has the centralized planning leads to starvation problem been resolved now? I am not being sarcastic and am open to persuasion. Our current system is a disaster but it's not clear to me how communism can deal with problems of motivation, allocation, and resource management to avoid mass starvations.
- How can communism deal with the food per total human issue without people managing that based on their own effort and resources and self-determinstion? Has the centralized planning leads to starvation problem been resolved now?
  Starvation that happens under capitalism never seems to count or matter.
- Pretty much every AES state that experienced famine did so early on, and/or during the fall of the Soviet Union. Food is stable in pretty much every AES country (though the DPRK has little agricultural land due to its geography). Central Planning isn't an issue with food production, most famines in Socialist countries came from similar sources as famines prior to becoming Socialist, not because of Socialism, and thus eliminated famine by developing more and improving production.
  I recommend looking more into how Socialist countries actually function, I think you have a very idealistic notion of Communism that is more detached from actual practice.
  
  If the government says "we will always feed and cloth and house you" and the land can feed 100 million people, and people reproduce as much as possible, going from 10 million to 60 million to 110 million, at 110 million people there won't be enough food. How does communism propose to stop the population from being imbalanced with nature? I say this as someone disgusted and appalled by the worsening homeless problem in the USA and the Christian response of putting spikes on the ground so people can't sleep. Homlessness existing in this day and age is vile. I just don't see how communism can work in balance with nature, but am open to persuasion. My skepticism may not be warranted, since Finland has mostly solved the homelessness problem, but that's also in a Democratic Socialist capitalist system. I am also one of the typical Americans that is scared of larger governments and it leading to more central control and corruption, with a corresponding loss of freedom.
  My desire to vote or be a part of a political party is really linked to being pro-gun, pro-women (and considering transwomen women), pro-business, pro-digital freedom and anti-homelessness. Capitalism in the USA has become a horrible mess, but mostly becaise religious idiots keep electing horrible politicians. But I'm starting to think more and more that religious idiots electing horrible politicians may be a part of the plan, may be by design. And when the supposed hard-core Christians are also so spiteful to the homeless, it really makes me open to persuasion.
  I am not sure if the problem is solvable. Some people want to do drugs and be irresponsible. Some people want to be productive. But maybe this is the sort of Ayn Rand lie that ultimately justifies cruelty.
  Many religious people see controlling population dynamics by government approving or denying procreation as dystopian. There are just so many religious idiots in America and cruel people. I like that in capitalism people can start businesses. However, if communism can cleanse the USA of religious assholes and stop homelessness without taking away guns, I'm open to hearing ideas about what communism can do. Still not a communist, but disgusted by society enough I'm open to hearing ideaa.
  Really, this means i should run for office to try to change things and stop the evils of homelessness. But i am gay and therefore unelectable.
- Speaking of the USA and it's food consumption, we waste an incredible amount of food. We grow food based on it's profitability not it's effectiveness at feeding people or delivering nutrition. Varieties are prioritized by their ability to stay "fresh" longer (or engineered) so that we can literally outsource farming to nations we can exploit on the cheap without the food spoiling on its way back here, by boat because that's cheapest.
  There have been attempts at things like centralized planning that were remarkably resilient to disruption in South America. If I recall, they managed to build a network, like decades ago, that allowed organizations within an industry to share information about production and stock, which allowed them to accommodate natural disruptions. I don't know for sure if that covered food specifically, if I'm being honest. Either way, we'll never know how long it could have lasted because we intervened and "convinced" the locals to adopt capitalism.
  I don't think there is a rule that "planning" or cooperation in production leads to things like starvation. Of course, anything can be planned poorly and if everything relies on a single bad plan there is the possibility that everything could go terribly wrong. Or things can just go wrong without any planning or cooperation, or because its not important to the owners of the means of production that people are fed - many people are malnourished and starving as we speak... Unfortunately, humanity has had very little opportunity to try centralized or cooperative planning because it threatens capitalism and established powers. I think if we did it carefully and learned from our mistakes centralized or cooperative planning could absolutely work. I have very mixed feelings and limited knowledge about China, and I am hesitant to believe anything due to propaganda war waged by both the CCP and capitalists worldwide. However, it seems clear that they have been prioritizing food security for a while. How are their rates of starvation and malnutrition?
  To be perfectly frank, my biggest concern about real socialism is that it is hard to make sustainable. This is not because of inherent flaws but because capitalist powers and oligarchs will sabotage it at every opportunity. It's been happening throughout history and humans have only gotten better (and even more subtle, if necessary) at sabotaging things. Look into how difficult it has been to allow the government to help people with programs or improve agencies that exist for that purpose... especially since Reagan. Now observe how quickly the current US federal government is being dismantled because those agencies we've somehow managed to create get in the way of profit.
  Hell, our current world economy is incredibly intertwined. Our current trade war with China makes it clear that even if a country mastered food distribution, anything imported could just be cut off or maliciously priced to sabotage that achievement. Unfortunately, even if we tried to be food secure without growing food elsewhere the US can't grow everything, and definitely not in the proportions we would need. Some of it, like coffee and tropical fruit, has to be excluded from the economy or imported... which leaves us vulnerable to manipulation.

Fucking labels. I have done the research on communism, socialism, capitalism, authoritarianism, Buddhism, taoism, etc.
Not a single real life person I've ever interacted with matches up with these labels. My personal experience with tankies (another label I don't get besides being in specific dumb instances) almost messes with that but nah.
I decided that I'm a member of one place.
Humanity.
- Capitalism is definitely garbage.
- Most Marxists follow certain tendencies, ie Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, Trotskyism, etc. These tendencies arise from believing certain aspects to be relative to local conditions, or universal, such as the concept of Protracted People's War. Communists in general will agree within tendencies because if you agree with certain foundations, then there are "correct" and "incorrect" conclusions.
- Labels are a real tool used to control and manipulate people

Ah yes, Kirbo, the only creature that wouldn't die of hunger on a collectivist paradise because he is:
-Inmortal
-Able to basically eat anything, even nothingness
This humor is like food in Soviet Russia. Not everybody gets it
- Just like healthcare in Capitalist US too ;b
  
  Healthcare is quite distinctly a US problem. Canada has free healthcare. So do all EU countries as far as I know.
- According to the US, Soviets in the USSR had a better, more nutritious diet than that of Americans.
  
  The CIA Document you mentioned on Soviet nutrition compared to the US, for those curious.
- The USSR achieved complete food security within twenty years of it's formation, ending centuries of cyclical famine
  
  Is that true? Why did ths USSR ultimately dissolve then? Didn't great numbers die to starvation under Marx and Lenin? I'm open to being wrong?
- The current capitalist system has become an ecologial and humanitarian disaster in many places. Both options don't work well, although mass starvation and government central control is likely worse.

Communism does the same but brainwashes you into believing everyone gets their fair share and there's no loss of wealth for ordinary working people.
- Historically that's not true.
  "Brainwashing" as a concept does not exist. People license themselves to accept whatever they think is useful to them. See "Brainwashing" and Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of "Brainwashing."
  Historically, living standards in Socialist countries governed by Communist parties most dramatically improved for the working class, and in a manner quantitatively different from Capitalist production. See the USSR, as an example:
  Or see the PRC's eradication of poverty and increase in income by generation, compared to the US:
  
  Tbf the example countries are countries that started very poor, so had the opportunity to make more impressive gains from more moderate gains in quality of life than those of already advanced economies. More advanced economies haven't usually turned to socialism though, so it's hard to compare.
  
  Found the Commie academic, guys!
  
  These relative measures seem like not entirely honest. Did the GDP of USSR ever reach or pass UK's? Growth is important of course in the high level, but for the common people absolute wealth probably means more.

Communism is when my uncle was killed for dissent. You want social democracy, not communism
The fact that this has 600+ upvotes is... major fucked up.
EDIT: the image is tagged "@proudSocialist". Any "proud socialist" would know that socialism and communism are not the same... Wow...
EDIT 2: If this gets more downvotes than upvotes I will gladly leave Lemmy. Have at it. :)
- : If this gets more downvotes than upvotes I will gladly leave Lemmy. Have at it. :)
  Please do, you'll be happier on reddit anyway
  
  Bizarre assumption that I'd be going to Reddit, as if Reddit and Lemmy are the entire internet.
- Every socialist/communist knows socialism is early stage communism.
  We do not want social democracy, we want communism
- All countries led by Communist parties have been Socialist, as Communism is a global system of a fully publicly owned economy. Socialism is when public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, while Capitalism is when private ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. Communism is a post-Socialist, global system of full public ownership, ie all "Communist" countries have considered themselves Socialist and building towards Communism.
  
  Romania has had social-democrats in charge for a long while now. I can assure you it is not "building towards communism"
  Socialism may be a transitional phase into communism, yes. But social-democrats are not communists.
- Dictatorship killed your uncle not communism

Communism is when you get executed for having a different opinion than the great leader.
- Thanks for being a great example of the meme
- murica has installed a dictator. They're not on the way. They're there.
  
  That's generally not true. Private Capital Owners lose their political privledge, while the working class gains democratic control. No AES state is a utopian paradise, but they do represent increased democratization for the working class at the expense of the Capitalist class.
- Communism is an economic concept not political. Technically it is possible to have a democratic communist country
  
  Politics and Economics are interrelated, and you cannot genuinely separate them. That's even why Marx studied Political Economy, not just Economics.
  Further, Socialist states run by Communists are democratic, just in a very different manner. Here's a diagram of how Soviet elections were handled, as an example:
  
  Marx literally calls for a genocide in his manifesto. It might not be political in your view, but communism is inherently a genocide.