• SilentStorms@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      88
      arrow-down
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not a tankie, but the USSR had mostly solved this problem, despite all its other issues. There did exist some homelessness, but nowhere near the extent of current USA.

      • pelya@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure, you could get a piece of land in Siberian tundra at any time, I would not call that housing.

        Moving to a city was way more complicated than in capitalist US. You could not simply buy an apartment. You had to be allocated an apartment by the government. And you needed connections for that. Or bribes. Ideally both. If you think your local rabid Republicans do not care for little wage slave men, you never experienced USSR, it was like that but 100x worse.

      • Mercival@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, I’m from a post-USSR country and a substantial part of this was the criminalization of homelessness. Can’t have homeless people, if you lock them up (be it in a prison or asylum).

        Then again, just about anyone, who did not conform to the party’s message got locked up. Getting your place bugged at the slightest hint you might be up to something disagreeable and all that good stuff. The secret police could disappear and or beat you up without any real justification.

        I hate late-stage capitalism as much as you, but coming from a country that’s been through this, I am extremely reluctant to give the rotten and frankly repugnant USSR regime any credit.

          • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s the final refuge for tankies. That and the old “social democracy only works by exploiting the global south” canard.

            • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              “social democracy only works by exploiting the global south” canard.

              Yeah, I could see finding this unconvincing if you haven’t read theory, history, or were just cool with benefiting from imperialism

      • Praise Idleness@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean even in the case of USSR they had to wait for more than a decade to actually get a livable apartment, not to mention severe lack of infrastructure…

        But of course, better than people just kicked out to the streets. But then again, less is not none. The housing situation definitely didn’t do USSR’s overall economic status any favor.

        People at least had somewhere to go

        that’s just moving the goal post, isn’t it?

        • Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          In Communist countries people starve to death because of famine, in Capitalist countries people also strave to death because of famine while still starving to death after famines are over because they cant afford groceries.

        • probablyaCat@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          20
          ·
          1 year ago

          Woohoo both systems suck. You can actually believe that just because one system is bad, what is considered the opposite is also bad. Marx was not some omniscient doctor manhattan. He had some ideas. Some were good critiques on capitalist culture. Others were fantasy that do not function in the real world.

          • Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            28
            arrow-down
            21
            ·
            1 year ago

            Notice how the folks arguing in favor of Communism have sources and receipts, while the folks arguing against it have done nothing but regurgitated Capitalist propaganda. Also note folks who are opposed to Communism and Marx’s philosophy are always forced to admit that it only works on paper, because his logic is irrefutable if you address it with a modicum of intellectual honesty…

            • Praise Idleness@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              1 year ago

              No one is going to deny that making perpetual motion device is good. How are you going to do that?

              Do you have source and receipts for real life communism solving housing problem? Not being better than capitalism. Solving. Being better than capitalism is kinda low bar you know. There are plenty of other things that real life capitalism does better than real life communism, hence communism failure. No one is going to show up with receipts and sources because obvious.

              You show us tents as a capitalist solution. That’s not a capitalist solution. That’s the problem itself. You’re misleading.

              because his logic is irrefutable if you address it with a modicum of intellectual honesty…

              Can you at least try to sound less douche about things?

              • Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                17
                arrow-down
                12
                ·
                1 year ago

                The joke is that Capitalism DOES NOT have a solution to homelessness because there is zero profit motive to solve it. And facts dont care about your feelngs, you cant refute Marx’s philosophy while being intellectual honest. Capitalist Economists study Das Kapital because Marx was so fucking spot on.

                • Praise Idleness@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yes, that’s why there is no pure capitalist country anywhere.

                  you cant refute Marx’s philosophy while being intellectual honest.

                  Why are you keep doing this? I said I don’t disagree with Marx. It’d be nice if communism can happen. Facts don’t care about your feelings either and all the shitty attemps of communism failed due to human being shitty. If you have to kill off people to keep the ideology, only to fail after about few decades, it has some reality problems.

                  And again, I cannot stress this enough, can you please stop sounding like a 16 year old kid who just read few paragraphs of Marx going iamverysmart about it?

                • WhiteHawk@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  10
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No need to refute Marx, reality has already proven time and time again that communism doesn’t work in practice.

                  Btw your argument only applies to “pure” capitalism, without any government interference. Homelessness is not really an issue in many European countries.

      • P00ptart@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        That’s what a lot of red states are doing now. Make homelessness illegal. Arrest the homeless. Make them do slave labor in jail. Profit.

    • Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah that’s called late stage Communism, which we have never achieved as humanity. Late stage Capitalism is currently pushing more and more folks into dangerous housing situations like the bottom right quadrant of this meme. Capitalism and Utopia are oxymorons while Communism and Utopia are synonymous.

        • Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Call me old fashion but no one living on the streets and having their basic needs met sounds pretty utopian to me.

          • MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            They don’t call you old fashioned for that, they call you tankie. It’s because they’re mad that you don’t buy the bullshit they push. Look at all the claims they make about the USSR here while providing no evidence or context for the situations they claim people were living in.

            They compare apples to oranges when it’s communism they are criticizing and stick their fingers in their ears while screaming when it comes to criticizing crapitalism.

          • xerazal@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            There were still people that lived in the streets in the USSR. Also, the housing the USSR provided wasn’t really that… great… I watch a Russian YouTuber (NFKRZ) who has talked about Soviet architecture in not just Russia, but other former USSR countries and shows that yes it’s good they were built, they weren’t very well built.

            The USSR had many problems, and bureaucracy was a big problem. I never understood why tankies love the USSR so much when the USSR didn’t truly get rid of class. Those in the government lived like kings compared to the common man, who yes lived better than they had before but still not that well due to the bloated and mismanagement of the government.

            Idk, the fact that they even had a centralized government like that seems like… the opposite of communism to me.

            • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I think what people don’t fully understand is that Marxism is meant to be scientific. That means that there will likely be many imperfect and failed attempts at building a socialist society before one comes along that is stable enough to outlast outside interference from capitalist states.

              As such, most people I know who like the USSR are also it’s biggest critiques. Unfortunately, there is so much misinformation about the USSR that most discussions about it online are just about delineating truth from propaganda.

          • GrapesOfAss@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ah yes because there was no one living on the streets, yes because a propaganda told me that it must be true.

      • probablyaCat@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah those soviets sure got rid of the homeless problem. Can’t be homeless when you were intentionally starved to death.

  • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    99
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    These discussions on communism vs capitalism that devolve into comparing the US with the USSR are like discussing feudalism vs liberalism in 1825, when the only perceptible legacies of the French Revolution were the Reign of Terror and Napoleon’s degeneration into monarchy.

    If you’re sensibly anticapitalist, for the love of Marx do not argue in favor of states that rejected all pretension of wanting to let the economy be democratically managed, ultimately turning into party-controlled hierarchies rather than socialism. If you’re a liberal in 1825 and rather than arguing in favor of ending serfdom and enfranchising everyone you keep going on about how Robespierre wasn’t really that bad, you’re politically useless.

  • Waluigis_Talking_Buttplug@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    124
    arrow-down
    45
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Why is this shit always communist vs capitalist, like we’ve only got 2 answers avaliable. You fuckers never set foot in a communist country and worship this shit

    Fucking communist countries have killed how many millions of their own citizens? Don’t really think showing a picture of some buildings is enough to prove that they actually solved any issues. They may have solved those issues for some who were lucky enough to get an apartment, but don’t be a hexbear and pretend they housed everyone.

    And no, I don’t want a response with a link about hurr duer capitalism bad, yeah I know, but I live in capitalism so I already know that.

    • 小莱卡@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is not “one or the another” situation, communism is the next qualitative stage in development of society. It solves the primary contradiction that we experience in capitalism, that is socialized production being privatized by individuals, aka capitalists.

      You can’t just declare communism by signing a document, because it is a process of development in which small quantitative changes in production (socialism) lead to a qualitative change (communism), thus to achieve the communism stage you have to achieve a certain level of development.

      This is why China is considered a communist country by marxists-leninist even though qualitatively it is a capitalist country. They are actively working to develop communism, this can be clearly seen throughout their rhetoric (i.e. “The Governance of China”) and their material results.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        The problem with China being that it’s authoritarian, not that it’s capitalist or communist. There’s no choice other than the Communist Party, so when the party is wildly corrupt, you have no recourse at all short of revolution. And we all know what China does to counter-revolutionaries.

    • Unaware7013@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      Fucking communist countries have killed how many millions of their own citizens?

      Bruh, centuries of capitalist exploitation of its citizens and treating them like a disposable commodity would like to have a word on the whole ‘citizens killed by their own country’ topic.

      How many thousands or millions of citizens die yearly because they can’t afford to live in this fucked up system?

      • WhiteHawk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        34
        ·
        1 year ago

        None? People don’t starve to death in western countries. And where they do the issue is lack of infrastructure. A communist government couldn’t conjure the resources needed to build that out of thin air either.

        • Unaware7013@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          32
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          None? People don’t starve to death in western countries. And where they do the issue is lack of infrastructure.

          “This thing doesn’t happen, and when it does, it’s not the fault of capitalism itself” is a monumentally stupid argument. Especially when talking about the homeless population, which absolutely does have people that starve.

          A communist government couldn’t conjure the resources needed to build that out of thin air either.

          And the capitalist economy chose not to build it because it wasn’t profitable, or after it was built, it was too expensive to be used.

          • 小莱卡@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Not to mention that the people in the global south starve because their food production literally goes to the west. What a fucking moron.

          • Smk@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Where is your great communist country ?? Oh wait, it’s not there. It doesn’t exist and it never will. Capitalism works. Not perfect but it works. Your idealized version of communism is great but so is my idealized version of capitalism where everyone has a shot at the American dream!

          • WhiteHawk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            16
            ·
            1 year ago

            I said it doesn’t happen in the west, not that it doesn’t happen anywhere. Please learn to read.

            • Perfide@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Bullshit it doesn’t happen in the west. 12.8% of US households were considered food insecure in 2022, with 5.1% of that being considered to have VERY low food security(Source). Over 20,000 Americans died of malnutrition in 2022, more than double the number in 2018(Source).

              There’s also nearly 30 vacant homes for every 1 homeless person in the US, so there’s plenty of room, too. Nobody needs a 2nd home when over half a million people don’t even have one.

                • Faresh@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  In the west, the main cause of malnutrition isn’t a lack of calories, but a difficulty in access (from availability or price or other factors) to healthy foods with the required nutrition for a healthy life or from an excess of certain nutrients. This is often manifested as conditions such a obesity and type II diabetes. So malnutrition does impact people in the west.

              • WhiteHawk@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Maybe you should have actually read that article before linking it. It discusses in detail the reasons for malnutrition being an issue, and none of those reasons is being unable to afford food. The problems are typically due to age and diseases.

                • intensely_human@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’ve been unable to afford food before, and I didn’t go hungry. People just gave me tons of free food.

        • purahna@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          saying that “people don’t starve to death in western countries” without understanding in the slightest the actual harms of food insecurity and how it leads to death is a very accurate representation of the scientific ignorance and sociopathic lack of empathy that capitalism supporters bring to the table in these kinds of discussions a hundred times out of a hundred

    • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Remind me, how many capitalist countries have killed millions of their own citizens?

      Germany, pre-communist China, Japan, Armenia, pre-USSR Russia, Pakistan…

      Edit: if apparently this isn’t the point, why so passionately call out the communist killcount?

      • 小莱卡@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not to mention all the fascist militaries supported by the US that regularly engaged on mass murders of “communists”. Indonesia, brazil, chile, south korea, south vietnam, etc… Ultimately they dont care, they just want to discredit communism by whatever means possible.

      • Waluigis_Talking_Buttplug@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        See, this is what the fuck I’m talking about.

        You’re so dense. I’m not advocating or simping got capitalism here. That’s what I’m trying to communicate, but you’re too fucking dense to even see that when I lay it out.

        Both are bad. Just because I say these turds who worship an imaginary and propagandized version of communism are dorks doesn’t mean I’m arguing in favor of capitalism. For fucks sake learn to read

        • TheOneAndOnly@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          You are 100% correct in your assertion, my anti Mario sex toy friend, and I love your passion. I worry that the minute you call someone’s intelligence into question, they’ll take a defensive posture and stop thinking critically. Critical thinking is what we need more than anything else in this world right now. That’s what’s in short supply. It’s why the news is constantly being flooded with new things, and why there are so few media outlets that don’t have a slant. If I can get you outraged at team blue, or team red, or team US, or team THEM, your anger overrides your reason and you stop thinking about who benefits from the distraction provided by us arguing over whatever this new bullshit thing is we’re arguing over. Hopefully that last statement makes sense.

    • mycorrhiza they/them@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      fucking communist countries have killed how many millions of their own citizens

      Most of these articles cite the Black Book of Communism, which goes to absurd lengths to inflate the death toll of Communism, for example counting all the millions of nazi and soviet soldiers killed on the eastern front as victims of communism, counting the entire death toll of the Vietnam war, and even counting declining birth rates as deaths due to communism.

      Noam Chomsky used the same methodology to argue that, according to Black Book logic, capitalism in India alone, from 1947–1979, could be blamed for more deaths than communism worldwide from 1917–1979.

      https://web.archive.org/web/20160921084037/http://www.spectrezine.org/global/chomsky.htm

    • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s even worse than that. Most Lemmy commies are aggressive sectarians who cling to a very particular form of the ideology, while rejecting all forms of moderate leftism and Marxist revisionism. It’s extremely obnoxious, and their bizarre, outdated philosophy is a primary reason why people are skeptical of leftist politics.

    • TheOneAndOnly@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s simple… If you convince the communists that the capitalists are trying to destroy them, (and vice versa), they fight each other, distracting them from the real enemy: the 1% with enough money to directly influence the folk that make the rules that keep them in the 1% club. We’re fighting culture wars so we won’t fight class wars, my friend.

      • darq@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        … capitalism is the ideology that lets the 1% be the 1%.

        This is like the one fight that isn’t part of the culture war.

        • Furball@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Do you think the Russian oligarchs, who by the way pen a FAR larger portion of the Russian economy than their American counterparts, appeared from nowhere after the collapse of the Soviet Union? The Soviets had an extremely wealthy and influential elite

        • TheOneAndOnly@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          The 1% exist in every form of government, my friend. Billionaire capitalists == Russian Oligarchs. The name changes based on the audience, but the idea is money influences politics. The folk with the most money to do so are the 1% who actually rule, not the interchangeable talking heads who take their money to live a comfortable life acting as the mouthpiece (or scapegoat) for that group.

          • Cowbee@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            22
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            …do you think Russia is still Socialist? The Russian oligarchs are Billionaire Capitalists.

            The USSR collapsed in the 90s, buddy.

            • TheOneAndOnly@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              1 year ago

              Exactly! This is exactly what I’m saying. The 1% is still the 1% calling the shots… No matter where they are or what you want to call the type of government they influence.

              • Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                18
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                The Russian Oligarchs you speak of are a result of the fall of Communism in Russia.

              • Cowbee@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes, so you’re proving the Communists and Socialists in this thread correct. Across all Capitalist systems, the bourgeoisie are still the ones calling the shots. Therefore, a better system would be a more decentralized, worker owned system, perhaps along the lines of Socialism or Anarchism, to reach an eventual state of Communism in the far future.

                What exactly do you take issue with Socialism, Communism, and Anarchism here? You appear to be advocating for a more top-down system like Capitalism, than a bottom-up system. Your argument appears to uphold your criticism.

                • TheOneAndOnly@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Oh! I see. No…I’m only saying the minute you start talking any “-isms”, you trigger feelings of tribalism that exist in all of humanity. We want to be on the “good team”. No one wants to be on the bad team, and that feeling is what the Uber wealthy uses to keep us busy. Debating all of the “-isms” is the problem. Let’s figure out how to take care of the masses so basic human needs are met, allowing humanity to prosper, and figure out what the hell to call it later. Otherwise, we just quibble over semantics and nothing gets done.

      • Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The 1% are the Capitalist and they are trying to defeat the Communists and surpress/continue to exploit the Prolitariat with every tool at their vast disposal. The folks in the comments defending Capitalism are all members of the Prolitariat brainwashed into thinking they are down on their luck Millionaires.

        • TheOneAndOnly@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Look… It’s all tribalism, in the end. We can argue semantics, but doing so it’s exactly their point. It keeps us busy with pedantry, while they continue to enjoy their wealth from on high. I am not educated enough to debate the pros and cons of each group, but I am intelligent enough to smell an attempt to distract me from the point. To know there’s some sleight of hand fuckery happening right in front of my face.

          • Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes you are intelligent, and so close to getting it, the cultural warfare bullshit is all a distraction to keep you from noticing the class warfare being waged against the working class by the 1% who continues to rob value from us to horde weath far beyond our comprehension. I cant recommend Marx’s writings enough, there is so much slight of hand fuxkery going on and it SHOULD rightfully piss you off!

            • TheOneAndOnly@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Help me understand how I’m close in what I’m saying, my friend. It feels like we’re saying exactly the same thing.

                • Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Bruh if I HAD to be right I would still be a devoted Libertarian simping for the free market. I love being proven wrong, its how people and ergo society are supposed to evolve and grow.

          • irmoz@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            What ideology is it, again, that champions working class people to take their power back? It’s certainly not right wing.

            If you think the world is fucked because of the greed of the 1%, and you want those people to pay for their crimes through class war, you’re communist.

            • intensely_human@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              What ideology is it, again, that champions working class people to take their power back?

              That sounds like a free market to me. When people have the power to determine their own fate, and how they engage with others for economic coordination.

              When everyone has the ability to choose how they engage, that’s called a free market. The economic system based on free markets is called capitalism.

              • irmoz@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                That sounds like a free market to me

                A free market means zero regulation, so I hope you like drinking poison because “ain’t no gubmint telling me how to bottle my soda!”

                When people have the power to determine their own fate, and how they engage with others for economic coordination.

                This requires kicking capital out of the economy. That would be defeating capitalism.

                When everyone has the ability to choose how they engage, that’s called a free market

                No, it’s called voluntary participation. Free markets inevitably trend toward monopolies and concentrations of power, because the supply side is not held to any standard.

                The economic system based on free markets is called capitalism.

                And look where it’s gotten us - with a 1% bleeding the rest dry.

              • irmoz@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Lol no, I do not say. No ruling class. No government. That’s communism.

                It’s bonkers to me that you talk a big talk about class and class conflict, yet are opposed to left wing politics. Where do you think those terms come from?

                What’s even more bonkers is that you seem to think communism has never said anything about the 1%, when that is the biggest problem communists won’t shut up about!

    • Katana314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m still confused and alarmed that the only alternative brought up is communism, not socialism. So far as I know, the core difference is transfer of power - one is peaceful, one is violent.

      So in communism, your home might be six feet underground because “It is necessary to achieve the revolution, comrade.” Absolutely zero chance of a leader that wants the best for their people, apparently.

      • Cowbee@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s incorrect.

        Socialism is Worker Ownership of the Means of Production. There sre many, many forms, such as Anarcho-Syndicalism, Marxism-Leninism, Democratic Socialism, Market Socialism, Libertarian Socialism, Anarcho-Communism, Council Communism, Left Communism, and more.

        Communism is a more specific form of Socialism, by which you have achieved a Stateless, Classless, moneyless society. Many Communist ideologies are transitional towards Communism, such as the USSR’s Marxism-Leninism or China’s Dengism and Maoism.

        Whether by reform or Revolution, the form doesn’t change.

      • huge_clock@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re also taking a snapshot of the most regulated industry in the US. Building high rises is illegal in huge swaths of urban areas. Before we say the free market isn’t providing an answer cab we actually try it? I’m talking removing exclusionary zoning, speeding up the permit process and reducing the power of local action committees, and reforming the broken heritage process that’s used by rich people to keep their areas from densifying.

      • Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Real socialism leads to communism. I want to call what I am advocating for as cultural marxism, but unfortunately that term has antisemitic connotations, while also perfectly encapsulating the gradual shift in the publics perception of Marxist ideology I am advocating for with memes such as this. I am not advocating for a violent revolution, but I wont deny the fact that when the powers that be make a peaceful revolution impossible, a violent revolution is inevitable.

    • Immersive_Matthew@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Right. Communism vs capitalism is just more centralization. There are plenty of decentralized options to balance things as too much centralization, no matter the political system leads to corruption.

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That is the death of capitalism. That’s capitalism (based on free markets) devolving into oligopoly (based on regulatory capture and tightly-restricted markets).

            Capitalism doesn’t last any better than any other institution. It degrades into something else. The thing it degrades into is a centrally-controlled market, similar to what you find in socialism.

            • Immersive_Matthew@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Agreed. Whether it is Capatalism, Communism, Socialism, democracy, dictatorship they all have centralizion in them even if their intent is otherwise. We need to support more decentralized services and governance as it balance the poor and returns it to the people. We just need more people to get on board, it it seems like we prefer to give our power to power hungry companies and regimes instead. Not saying we need to have zero centralization as it has its place, but it needs to be kept in check and the only to force to do so is decentralization. But it is all so much more complicated and above the human condition to manage. Hopefully AI will be able to help for better or for worse.

    • Kushan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s almost like there’s a middle ground that’s the best of both worlds.

      • EchoCT@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Except there isn’t. we tried that then the capitalists bought the weaker willed politicians and used them to undermine any regulation. Capitalism is a cancer and must be excised as such.

        • Kushan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t disagree that Capitalism doesn’t work in its purest form, but we’ve hardly had a success with communism in its purest form either.

          • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            We literally have. Look at the massive literacy, life expectancy, and political rights increases under literally every single communist government compared to what came before them instead of comparing them to some utopian ideal that capitalism compares even less favorably to.

            • intensely_human@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              life expectancy, and political rights increases under literally every single communist government

              Are you not aware of the massive incarceration, labor camps, starvation, conscription, etc?

              Have you read about the Battle of Stalingrad? Do you seriously not know the stories of how life expectancy and political rights were totally and utterly squashed many times by communist governments?

              • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Are you not aware of the massive incarceration, labor camps, starvation, conscription, etc?

                Are you aware the gulags never reached the same scale as the current US prison system? Are you aware that under the Soviets and under the CPC previously periodic famines under the previous governments stopped after initial industrialization?

                I will leave you with this quote, ironically about a liberal revolution against monarchists

                THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.

  • Pharmacokinetics@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    85
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    People tend to argue that commie blocks look depressing and dystopian but you can actually make very pretty neighborhoods with them.

    This is where I live. It’s called Oyak Sitesi in Turkey/Antalya and it’s a beautiful place with an actual community. Very affordable too. We just did a stability test and they were also very durable to earthquakes.

    Just because you’re making blocks doesnt also mean that they have to be 20 stories tall either. Here is my old house.

    • Madlaine@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The important parts are paint and maintenance.

      Give a commie block a fresh coat of paint every decade or so and they can look good (though I just don’t like flat roofs. But that’s personal taste.)

      But while a somewhat run down european style house can still have some charme for longer (guess I’m biased here) a run down commie block in gray and with cracks in the facade will quickly start to look depressing.

      And as they are often chosen for cost reasons inside capitalistic environments, they are often neglected.

      So, the problem is not commie blocks, but how they are maintained. And as often we tend to search for the extreme examples if we (dis)like something.

      • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I happen to live in a city that’s primarily blocks (or as we call them: Plattenbauten) and honestly, they’re pretty good houses. The structure is sound, after some renovations in the 90s and 00s, insulation and comfort are perfectly fine, and the surroundings are usually very green and pleasant.

        The only real problem is, that these buildings are somewhat away from the city center due to superior socialist planning, so they are not super attractive for younger people.

      • uis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        I should probably take pictures of freshly-paited commie blocks in my district and post them on lemmyy.

    • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why do you call them “commie blocks”??

      It wasn’t communists who came up with the idea of that type of building and it’s a common sight in many European countries, for example, which are not communist.

  • ColdWater@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    114
    arrow-down
    53
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why a lot of people on Lemmy like communist so much? As a person who grow up in a country which is almost destroyed by the communist party in the past I don’t know what to say just why?, capitalist or not it’s depends on your own country’s government, at least you still can talking shit about them without getting arrested and torture to death, have we not learn from the past or other communist country, why don’t you live in North Korea or China and see how’ve you like it

    • SasquatchBanana@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      69
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m going to take your question as genuine and answer in equal.

      It’s a bit more complicated than that. Most leftists will agree with you, the USSR and other Eastern Europe countries that were communist did a lot of damage and most likely more harm. They committed atrocities. They were authoritarian. It was disgusting.

      The leftists who still prop those countries up on their shoulders are what many call tankies. Today they sing praise about Russia, China, and North Korea, but your observation is correct, they won’t ever move there. These are individuals who repeat propaganda and are, ultimately, just red fascists. When you actually dig into their ideals they parallel and sometimes mirror Nazis.

      I believe leftism cannot have an authoritarian element to it. I think most social hierarchies need to be destroyed. I think the only way to have a socialist society is through democratic means. Democracy in the workplace and national level. I think most of us can agree workers need higher wages and there is a wealth gap that needs to be dismantled. I think most of us believe healthcare needs to be universal, food and shelter and water, education, information (internet), speech, and much more should be free and readily available. There is this element of freedom that needs to be achieved that isn’t found the countries that are “communist”.

      I don’t want to explicitly say those communist countries wasn’t “real communism”, but fascists, authoritarianism, always appropriate from progressive movement. There is no freedom, especially of workers, under a dictatorship. If workers are starving, dying, being outright black bagged and killed, i don’t think that can be considered communist.

    • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s an unfortunately nuanced subject, where people don’t agree on the underlying definitions of words. For instance, I think you’re confusing “capitalism” with “democracy”. You can have authoritarian undemocratic capitalist countries, where you can’t talk shit about your government.

      For me personally, I think communism has too many issues to actually try, but I like some of its theoretical tennants when compared to that of capitalism. Those goals are something to strive for. The spirit of communism is helping eachother and rewarding work, and the spirit of capitalism is sacrificing others for personal gain

    • Soleos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Because they are reacting to living under the oppressive structures of late capitalism. Having been raised in a capitalist world, they naturally overemphasize economic systems and their alternatives and make assumptions about government.

      So when they communism theyusually mean communism + some equitable government or just they mean socialist democracy.

      Funnily enough, you live pretty well in China these days if you’re a good little capitalist.

    • rando895@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Though to be fair, DPRK is the way it is at least in part thanks to the Americans obliterating their cities and farm land. But we can ignore history to make a “I used to be in a communist country and it’s bad, trust me bro” statement.

      And I agree, I prefer to live in a system where prisoners aren’t primarily minorities or political prisoners. And where the prison system isn’t the most populated in the world, and rife with for-profit forced labour.

      I would also be curious to hear which definition of “capitalism” and “Communism” you are using. That is, if you are open to dialogue.

    • Cowbee@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      A number of reasons. Just like you claim a Communist party almost destroyed your country, Capitalist parties destroy and are destroying many countries as well. The existence of bad Communist parties does not itself mean Communism is structurally a bad thing, as pursuit of a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society is a noble goal for humanity.

      I think it’s fair to say that decentralization is a good check against Authoritarianism, and as such, this should be extended to the workplace, not just government.

      As far as why Lemmy leans left, the founder is a Communist, and principles of decentralization and federation tend to appeal far more to leftists, while Capitalist-inclined individuals have Reddit.

    • TheBeege@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This community is on lemmy.ml, which explicitly leans hard left. Maybe a memes community on another instance would be less like this

    • RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      ‘in the past’

      How old are you? If your claim to authority here is that you grew up being told history by the winners, what should that mean to us?

      What was done in South America for a century was done in a decade in Eastern Europe when the west finally won the cold war. Read Shock Doctrine.

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Saying that any existing communist party looks like what we, or theory, want(s), is like saying that North Korea is a Democratic Republic because it’s part of the name. Authoritarians love corrupting the meaning of words so they can keep people ignorant.

    • mycorrhiza they/them@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      how old were you when the USSR fell? Did you experience communism, or the capitalist takeover after communism fell?

    • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because they hate the system they live in and communism is the only modern alternative that has ever existed.

      When someone comes up with an alternative to both, humanity will move forward.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      You need to tell your story more, and include the feelings, and include how the communist policies did that destruction.

      People like communism because they don’t know your story.

  • TheDarksteel94@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    85
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    What if, and hear me out on this one, the problem isn’t which “-ism” is prevalent. The real problem is that ANY form of power or society needs checks and balances. If those are missing or not enforced, then everything goes to shit. It’s a balancing act, not just a matter of black or white.

    • Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      37
      ·
      1 year ago

      The whole point of Communism is to balance power away from the 1% and back to the masses. The fact that it is an “-ism” and has decades of propaganda demonozing it, doesnt make that any less true.

      • Kalkaline @leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        46
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        The important part is it’s not an authoritarian running the show and calling it “communism” or " democracy" when the reality is it’s just a plain old oligarchy with a new title applied.

      • SuperDuper@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The whole point of Communism is to balance power away from the 1% and back to the masses

        But there needs to be some governing body that is responsible for determining how the power and wealth is distributed. Per the OP’s point: if the proper guardrails are not in place, control of that governing body will eventually shift towards a person or party who corrupts it for their own purposes. It doesn’t matter what the “point” of a system is, corrupt people will always attempt to take the wheel.

        • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This was legitimately a problem after ww2 where the politically active communists were more heavily involved in the war and a bunch of the human infrastructure of (especially local)democracy got killed by nazis

      • MrSqueezles@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is why Xi Jinping lives in a giant gilded castle and any negative thing said anywhere about him is censored, just like every other citizen. Everyone’s equal.

      • TimeSquirrel@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        24
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        balance power away from the 1% and back to the masses

        By installing a dictator…every time it’s attempted…

        Maybe not do that next time and try doing it from the bottom up instead of top-down🏴. It’s much more work to convince people that this is a solution and have them help willingly instead of forcing them to go along with it. We tried the Marxist-Leninist way dozens of times, let’s try the anarchist way. A capitalist boot or a communist boot on my neck makes no difference to me, it’s still a boot on my neck.

        • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That is a problem of how revolution works, not a problem of communism.

          Create a power vaccuum, and those who had the most power will STILL have the most influence. Even if you literally killed all the old power, you would be immediately creating an authority structure with the legal authority of capital punishment, which many, MANY communists wouldn’t agree with.

          The problem is horrible people exist, NOT the concept of communism. For every reason people shit on Communism, there are twenty valid reasons to shit on capitalism. Neither system works in the real world on its own. To pretend like capitalism is magical in comparison is literally failing to observe reality.

          The rich and powerful constantly shit on political action because it IS effective. They do not enjoy going through the effort of retaining power through internal conflicts and ESPECIALLY not actual revolutions. Why would they EVER tell you the truth?

        • Cowbee@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why did Napoleon take power after the French Revolution if Capitalism doesn’t have dictators every time a revolution occurs?

            • Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              HE WAS AVERAGE HEIGHT FOR THE TIME PERIOD!!! (I miss overlysimplified so much)

        • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Maybe not do that next time and try doing it from the bottom up instead of top-down🏴.

          Those have been tried, but they often tend to get liberated by the CIA. Or in some cases, the KGB / Red Army.

          • rchive@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m certainly not advocating for toppling other countries’ governments, but honestly the fact that so many countries end up not being able to withstand the attacks from outside is kind of a mark against them.

            • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well, that’s the problem with bottom-up government, isn’t it? It is better in most ways, but the local empire will invade you at the first chance they get.

              If I remember correctly, the fall of the Paris commune to a Franco-German alliance was what led the early Marxists to embrace a centralised system. Of course, that brings its own problems, as power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

          • TimeSquirrel@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Rojava is doing exactly as I suggested. Spreading the power out. It’s a rare bird among the many communist attempts. I was actually going to offer it up as an example.

      • jeansibelius@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just look at “balance power away from 1%” in China, Ruzzia or North Corea. Do you really like it? Or you just read books and not looking at real life examples?

    • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      You should read capital volume one, it will explain how the problem actually is capitalism

      • Jungle@linux.community
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Actually, the problem is homelessness.

        The solution is either housing (ethical) or genocide (unethical).

        Provision of housing for the poor can be achieved by means of social housing programs. These can exist in both communist and capitalist societies. E.g. the Netherlands is capitalist, but there is almost no homelessness thanks to its social housing program. The few homeless that are present are choosing this way of life and are therefore not part of problem.

    • MrSqueezles@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why is there so much communist propaganda on Lemmy? Could it be that reddit is actually good at filtering out state-sponsored content farms?

      • Cowbee@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Decentralization appeals to leftists, as that’s the principle of the ideology, away from bourgeois interests.

        I haven’t seen evidence of state-sponsored propaganda, though there are people that simp far too hard for China and the CPC on Lemmy though.

  • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    Please, not this again… Personally, I am a lot in favour of communism. But some people, especially US Americans, have a fundamentally wrong idea about the housing shown in the upper picture.

    This is often neither cheap, nor does it reduce homelessness. And it’s also not the goal of that kind of rental homes to reduce homelessness.

    That is just normal homes of average people in many places.

    It’s not “cheap housing for everyone”.

  • uis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is not communist solution, this is half-socialism humant colony solution.

    Real communist solutions look like this:

  • Roflmasterbigpimp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I live in north-east Germany in one of these Blocks (it was firmly renovated tho). It’s actually not bad. Most of them are build in Horseshoe shape so you have small parks inside. But it’s nearly impossible to hang anything to the wall without proper power tools. EDIT: typos

  • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    “Darn that’s a lot of tents, this is starting to become a real problem. Better build more rental properties.”

  • Commiunism@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Finland is capitalist and kind of solved homelessness, with there being around only 1.3k homeless people in the entire country (population: 5.6m, which means the rate of homelessness is around 0.02%).

    I don’t think that communism or any ideology is an answer to homelessness, it’s pretty much the job for the government and what kind of systems/reforms they implement.

  • essell@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not in the UK. Our government is looking to ban the tents next. That’ll fix the homeless issue 😕