this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
915 points (94.3% liked)

Lefty Memes

4524 readers
1179 users here now

An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the "ML" influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.

Serious posts, news, and discussion go in c/Socialism.

If you are new to socialism, you can ask questions and find resources over on c/Socialism101.

Please don't forget to help keep this community clean by reporting rule violations, updooting good contributions and downdooting those of low-quality!

Rules

Version without spoilers

0. Only post socialist memes


That refers to funny image macros and means that generally videos and screenshots are not allowed. Exceptions include explicitly humorous and short videos, as well as (social media) screenshots depicting a funny situation, joke, or joke picture relating to socialist movements, theory, societal issues, or political opponents. Examples would be the classic case of humorous Tumblr or Twitter posts/threads. (and no, agitprop text does not count as a meme)


1. Socialist Unity in the form of mutual respect and good faith interactions is enforced here


Try to keep an open mind, other schools of thought may offer points of view and analyses you haven't considered yet. Also: This is not a place for the Idealism vs. Materialism or rather Anarchism vs. Marxism debate(s), for that please visit c/AnarchismVsMarxism.


2. Anti-Imperialism means recognizing capitalist states like Russia and China as such


That means condemning (their) imperialism, even if it is of the "anti-USA" flavor.


3. No liberalism, (right-wing) revisionism or reactionaries.


That includes so called: Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Dengism, Market Socialism, Patriotic Socialism, National Bolshevism, Anarcho-Capitalism etc. . Anti-Socialist people and content have no place here, as well as the variety of "Marxist"-"Leninists" seen on lemmygrad and more specifically GenZedong (actual ML's are welcome as long as they agree to the rules and don't just copy paste/larp about stuff from a hundred years ago).


4. No Bigotry.


The only dangerous minority is the rich.


5. Don't demonize previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.


We must constructively learn from their mistakes, while acknowledging their achievements and recognizing when they have strayed away from socialist principles.

(if you are reading the rules to apply for modding this community, mention "Mantic Minotaur" when answering question 2)


6. Don't idolize/glorify previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.


Notable achievements in all spheres of society were made by various socialist/people's/democratic republics around the world. Mistakes, however, were made as well: bureaucratic castes of parasitic elites - as well as reactionary cults of personality - were established, many things were mismanaged and prejudice and bigotry sometimes replaced internationalism and progressiveness.



  1. Absolutely no posts or comments meant to relativize(/apologize for), advocate, promote or defend:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 72 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (39 children)

Genuine question. How would a transition to socialism work in practice?

Eating the billionaires and "nationalizing" publicly traded companies is the easy part. Saying "you can still possess your car" is also easy. The hard, and ultimately unpopular, part is everything else in between. Summer cottage? Family farm? What happens to pensions/retirement savings, land ownership, inheritance, small businesses, the apartment your are renting out to pay for your own rent...

Yeah, I know, these things tend to be out of reach for younger folks these days, precisely because of hyper wealth concentration. So with billionaires and mega corps out of the picture, the question still stands.

[–] [email protected] 54 points 4 months ago

When socialists say they want to collectivize private property, they use a meaning of private property which equates to "means of production", or "capital". The goal is that there won't be owners of capital earning money simply by employing other people to work the capital and stealing a part of what they produce (surplus value).

In your example, summer cottages and family farms aren't means of production, so there's no reason to redistribute them. Pensions and retirement were guaranteed to everyone even in the USSR, where women retired at 55 and men at 60, so I can guarantee socialists want you to have a pension. Small businesses that employ other employees would have to be collectivized eventually, which could mean that the owner simply becomes one normal worker in the business, working alongside the previous employees instead of above them. Regarding the apartment, you don't need to rent out an apartment if the rent of your apartment costs 3-5% of your income (as was the case in the Soviet Union). Land ownership and inheritance are a bit grey. Obviously nobody wants to collectivize your nana's wedding dress, or your dad's funko pop collection. Obviously we would want to collectivize if you inherit a big factory, or 20 flats that your mom rented out. For things in the middle, it becomes a bit more grey, so there's no easy answer. I bet everyone would agree that uprooting people isn't generally a good thing.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Summer cottage? Family farm?

One fairly straightforward plan is the nationalization of housing. If you own and occupy your primary residence, you may stay. If you have a secondary residence, you can keep it as a vacation home. If you own more than that, they're going to go to the state. Pick two. If you're a renter, and you occupy that place, it's now yours. Anytime someone is moving, the government has the right to first refusal, which it will always utilize. Effectively, the governments buys the house back each time, and then sells it again to someone new. If you die your home can go to a family member/designated person. No one may more than 2 homes, no one may sell a home to another individual directly, though the transfer/sale of a home to a specified individual can be arranged through the government. All rents/mortgages are income based, and payments end after 5 years.

Cuba has done this fairly successfully. Yugoslavia had a similar system. No, it's not the best system imaginable, nor is it super popular with the ~~fucking leeches~~ owner class, but it's viable, doable, and simple enough to set up while insuring that all people may be homed.

[–] lunarul 17 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

the government has the right to first refusal

the transfer/sale of a home to a specified individual can be arranged through the government

And time and time again this has lead to people in the government abusing this power and assuring for themselves and their families a completely different standard of living than the rest of the population. I've lived in a socialist country and the end was not pretty.

It sounds great on paper and has proven great on small scales (with the option to leave the community if you want), but on larger scales human nature always messes things up.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 4 months ago (5 children)

It works by encouraging union and co-ops, actually punishing companies that break laws, and providing social safety nets. Basically everything this comic points out.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm not a socialist, but what I advocate for is explicitly postcapitalist.

Some postcapitalist policies include

- All firms are mandated to be worker coops similar to how local governments are mandated to be democratic
- Land and natural resources are collectivized with a 100% land value tax and various sorts of emission taxes etc
- Voluntary democratic collectives that manage collectivized means of production and provide start up funds to worker coops
- UBI

@leftymemes

[–] [email protected] 18 points 4 months ago (6 children)

I'm not a socialist

All firms are mandated to be worker coops

Pretty sure that qualifies as socialism for most people. Welcome onboard, my friend!

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Wealth tax and taxing inheritance. You know it works because the capitalists flee the fucking country as soon as you inplement it (or rather before, when they buy information from a corrupt official or legally from a politician).

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (34 replies)
[–] breadsmasher 48 points 4 months ago

“But what if one day I get generational wealth? I better vote against anything that might reduce poverty and wealth inequality!” - republican voters

[–] [email protected] 36 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (5 children)

This is really just a very specific type of socialism, as indicated by Lenin being here; an authoritarian who killed other socialists. This is about ML.

The first and last panels are right, but, for example, according to this post Anarcho-Communists don't exist. They don't believe in "evolving to a point" as the third panel says, they believe in jumping straight to that point. Also, Libertarian Socialists wouldn't really be fond of "elected committees" controlling things, as the second panel talks about; maybe electing people into leadership positions inside of a company/cooperative, or maybe even having unions make those decisions, but nothing above that.

[–] CodexArcanum 26 points 4 months ago (3 children)

They included a picture of Picard too, should I assume this is ML-utopianism and just shut down listening completely?

Also, I'm an anarchist and don't believe in "jumping to the point." We're not all teenagers with no concept of how societies work. We're opposed to the State and any form of imposed hierarchy. That I'm opposed to the State today doesn't mean I don't vote or that I'm just waiting around for the spirit of Good Anarchism to posses every person on Earth suddenly.

Like any reasonable person with an ideology, I make plans to spread my ideas to more people over time. The capitalist state isnt going to auddenly collapse into anarchy and if it did it woukd be terrible because other parts of the collapsing state are going to form monarchies, fascist authoritarian fortresses, and many other balkanized microstates. It would be the worst possible outcome for anarchists!

No, our goal is to enact socialism. Then to whither away the state apparatus into communism. Then to whither away the global hierarchy in favor of self-determination and negotiation.

In no universe do serious people think: Step 1: destroy all governance. Step 2: ????. Step 3: Anarchist utopia.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 months ago (13 children)

Good comment. Whether Marxist or Anarchist, goals must be built towards, and cannot be vibed into existence.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] suction 21 points 4 months ago (3 children)

The 1% cry about it way less than the 40+% of absolute troglodytes in this country who think of themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires and love their tacky prophet Donnie the douche

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 4 months ago (20 children)

Lenin wasn't a socialist. He was a transparently dishonest fraud who built a cult of personality. The best thing you can say is that he failed because if the results were a success, Lenin was a monster.

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This cartoon makes some bad assumptions.

"the workers (aka the proletariat) own their own workplace" That's one way to do it, or you could have that happen indirectly where the workplace is owned by the government and the workers "own" it indirectly. Most firefighters don't work for a for-profit company, but it's also not a firefighter-owned company that goes and sells firefighting services to businesses that don't want to burn down. A worker-owned company might make sense in certain situations, say a clothing store. You wouldn't necessarily want a central government owning all garment manufacturing and sales. A worker-owned collective is probably a better match. You might have a worker-owned sports store that focuses on selling sports gear, and a worker-owned wedding gown store that focuses on that market. Most people are more familiar with the government-owned model, and that's also socialism.

"production is then planned by elected committees"... why? That's the communist way, but that's not necessarily how a socialist system has to operate. And, in many cases, an "elected committee" is absolutely the wrong way. In countries with state-provided healthcare, there's a government minister who is in charge of health, and their ministry hires the experts needed to run the healthcare system. I definitely don't think that system would be improved if an elected committee were in charge of running things. You might still have worker-representation in those setups. For example, the nurses could belong to a union, and a union rep would be part of decision making. But, an elected committee is a weird fit in many situations.

"increases in productivity continuously reduce the work week"... that's just not likely. People who have high paying jobs could sometimes demand a shorter work week, and occasionally they do. But, often they want a more luxurious life in their time off rather than a less luxurious life and lots of time off. I'm not talking about CEOs and other people who are workaholics and own multiple mansions. I'm talking about dentists and engineers who are willing to keep working a standard 40 hour week so that they can take trips around the world, or buy a nice cottage near a lake, or treat their kids to nice presents.

This way of presenting socialism is going to give people the wrong idea.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Dasus 13 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Market socialism also exists, just to remind everyone.

If you Google "define socialism", you'll get a sentence saying socialism is when tve means of production are owned OR regulated by the people.

So you can still have what we have right now, no need for any sort of fundamental change, except proper regulation, meaning actually good labour laws and proper taxation for the wealthy.

Finland and other Nordics are arguably market socialist.

And yes, I know how many will disagree. Here in Finland, less so.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago

Finland and other Nordics are arguably market socialist.

Absolutely not, they are Social Democracies. They are not progressing towards more worker ownership, but less, Capitalism still drives the system and the bourgeoisie still drives the state.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

By any reasonable dictionary (as well as classic definition), capitalism is defined by private property of the means of production. Socialism is defined by common/social ownership of the means of production, not "regulation". What you call "market socialism" is just regulated capitalism.

Nothing wrong with having any position, and we should strive for what's best instead of trying to correspond to certain terms, but what you suggest is not socialism.

And I kinda hate it when we move the goalposts, especially with American politician calling literally any bit of social policy "socialism". No it's not, and classics have outlined it very, very clearly.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] DarkCloud 9 points 4 months ago

I wonder if some common pitfalls like too much party control over committees, lying about quotas for financial gain, and the vulnerabilities of a society in revolt could be squeezed in, or perhaps covered in a second image.

Orthodox Marxism isn't always enough, and is not beyond revision and improvements (hence the many neo-marxists). Critical Theorists have addressed Marxism as well as Capitalism after all.

That said, the post is good and educational as is, and has my up vote.

See you at the first plenary session comarades!

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

Question. How can we be sure to trust that the elected committees do not turn society into an authoritarian regime? Would it work like standard western democracy, i.e. electing a party / parties to form a "government" (in this case committee; semantics)?

Edit: I truly appreciate everybody who takes the time to write elaborate answers pertaining to my question. I will read and respond once I have the opportunity and in that case, I hope eventual followup questions are welcomed. :)

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago (3 children)

The key is in one of the words you've said:

ELECTED committee

You don't have to trust that they won't turn authoritarian. If you see authoritarian tendencies and you don't like them, you vote them out.

Would it work like standard western democracy, i.e. electing a party / parties to form a "government"

That depends on who you ask. An anarchist will tell you no, a communist will tell you a different answer, etc. I'm a Marxist-Leninist so I'll answer to that as a Marxist-Leninist.

In a Marxist-Leninist state, there is only one party. In the same way that your country only have one justice system, your country only has one socialized system of healthcare (if at all), etc, there would be need only for one party: the party that represents the interests of the workers. This party would have a vanguard of communist intellectuals (liable to being removed from their position by popular vote), who would be in a constant back-and-forth democratic dialogue with the workers and their representation in worker-councils. The needs and demands of the workers would be translated to Marxist ideology, which is flexible depending on the circumstances, the culture, and the society it's applied to, and policy would be drafted, approved and adopted.

A good example of this in action is detailed in a book called "how the workers' parliaments saved the Cuban Revolution", by Pedro Ross. It details the immense level of popular participation in the drafting, approval, implementation and execution of policy in Cuba during the 1990s "periodo especial", a huge economic crisis precipitated by the dissolution of their biggest trading partner, the USSR. Literal millions of people, through their unions and through worker councils, participated democratically in deciding which sectors of the economy they wanted to preserve most, which ones least, which workers are redundant and which aren't, which goods and services should be prioritised in the planned economy, how to organize local organic farms everywhere (including workplaces) in order to minimize food imports... All of this happened in a back-and-forth, multi-year exercise, between the top representatives of the government, the specialists (e.g. economists, hospital directors, transit company directors, etc.), and the direct representatives of the people through the worker's councils. It's truly one of the most explicit and overwhelming examples of democracy that I've ever encountered.

[–] Windex007 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

gestures broadly at elected officials now

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] thawed_caveman 8 points 4 months ago (8 children)

After reading this, i now understand less about socialism.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] StoneyDcrew 7 points 4 months ago (5 children)

I would love to see a policy where there is a variable tax rate on companies based on employees satisfaction.

If a company has a largely unhappy workforce they would be taxed most of their profits.

If a company has a extremely happy workforce then it can reduce the taxation rate below the standard rate. And employees can still vote on this 2 years after termination.

It incentivises companies to invest more in the employees wellbeing, and punishes companies that take practice in unsustainable hiring and mass layoffs later.

If it is unavoidable that a company needs to downsize, they would be incentivised to help employees find new employment.

I'm sure there is a large issue I'm not seeing with this but I'm pretty fond of the idea.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›