this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2024
877 points (92.4% liked)

Political Memes

5236 readers
2323 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CorrodedCranium@leminal.space 70 points 7 months ago (2 children)

There's a paraphrased quote by John Steinbeck that I've frequently seen that comes to mind

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."

[–] lemmingrad@thelemmy.club 42 points 7 months ago (21 children)

Socialism never took root in America because people who tried to organize got shot.

[–] Saurok@lemm.ee 14 points 7 months ago

Or imprisoned, or deported, etc.

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] BossDj@lemm.ee 21 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I hate homework too, but the post and title really got me amped to say:

Think back to what your teachers taught. Maybe not 100% universal, but teachers #1 job is to get you to question. Why do most people end up reading Steinbeck? Mice and men, Huck Finn, Gatsby maybe. Frigging to kill a mocking bird pushed on them by a high school teacher. They got yelled at for letting kids read Harry Potter.

The good ones pushed you to be better and realize self worth. Hell, in the US, teachers for a decade have been putting up with parents that are so. pissed. off. because your math is too hard for them (math is math!!). And the bullshit "all I learned was mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell!" Science is blasphemy at its finest. You weren't supposed to memorize content, nobody remembers the content from middle school. You remember the processes. Here's how to explore the unknown.

If this wasn't your experience, I'm sorry. There's more but this is too long now

[–] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Schooling in the 80s was still very much training us to sit still and follow the routine. Because we were all going to be happy worker bees for a living. And our classes had 30+ kids and one teacher for most of elementary school.

I’m not sure it has really changed much in most of America, especially since standardized testing became the norm and led to “teaching to the test” in many classroooms. I have since realized I had a couple teachers along the way who encouraged questioning your preconceived notions, 7 and 8 grade jr high science teachers specifically, and a metal shop teacher who they eliminated the year I would have taken it in exchange for a computer based “synergy” class.

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

This was pretty much my answer to a German expat who candidly asked: "WTF is up with the schools here?" I angrily answered in line with the above.

GP is correct in that school should be about learning how to learn and think critically. And there are elements of that still in play, but it's not the focus, and it's not evenly distributed.

[–] BossDj@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

Teachers are still in and ruled over by the system. Still waiting for a better way to feed information to (now 40 per teacher) middle school kids. I dunno if you've asked any teachers, but they DESPISE standardized testing and having 40 kids and zero parent support. They don't control any of that.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

~~(The Adventures of) Huckleberry Finn was Samuel Clemons, AKA Mark Twain, and is the sequel to The Adventures of Tom Sawyer.~~

NM just realized that none of the later books you listed were Steinbeck

[–] Couplqnd@lemmy.world 23 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Lots of bad takes in this thread.

Most people don't even understand capitalism or socialism or even communism.

For a surface level understanding of capitalism, this video does a good job. https://youtu.be/C1Gs0uqqggc?si=EHli6_sWDCroIKpE

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 17 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Good video. People get caught up in words and ideas without realizing most of us want the same goals. Instead of demonizing the “other” for some emotional validation, we should strive to listen and learn. Educate the hate away.

[–] bitwaba@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

we should strive to listen and learn. Educate the hate away.

I see your point, but let me offer a counter point:

Fuck You

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] hglman@lemmy.ml 16 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Capitalism dominates the world because it trades tomorrow for today in an attempt for exponential growth without regard for the future. Anyone doing less is dominated and exploited by the resource imbalance. Capitalism isn't winning bc its good, its winning bc its not playing to win, its playing to die.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Is that a quote? Or an original thought. Either way, it’s golden.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] yggstyle@lemmy.world 19 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Simple son. Capitalism grew with us - the generation that has the most bodies. Over time we distorted it to fit our needs as we aged. We postdated checks and took credit. You have our capitalism because this isn't your government- it's ours. Don't worry though you can have it when we're done.

.... Son...? You're shaking...

[–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Our capatilism worked post WWII. Then the gaps grew. If ownership still took modest gains and were closer to the workers, it would work. Now the gap is so great, they won't change until there is a revolution. Either in government, or the standard kind in history.

[–] yggstyle@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago

Gaps grew (in part) because of capitalism. Back when the previous generations were working- people were compensated fairly and given regular raises... it wasn't uncommon to work for the same company until you retired. What changed? Line goes up above all else. Cut raises, mandatory pay cuts, layoffs etc. Line went up. But that has an effect that amplifies over time.

Raises were largely responsible for offsetting inflation - this is the gap that steadily widened. There are of course other factors but most of these are, at least in part, also effected by inflation.

Generally speaking capitalism works, sure. But this is no longer capitalism. We have too big to fail, price fixing to choke out competition, and a governing body bought and paid for by megacorp.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Competition drives that gap, Capitalism is still what drove that chance.

[–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

We did it for a hundred years without the gap being that big. I credit greed as the problem.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Society is driven by material conditions, not people and ideas. Capitalism's competitive nature drove itself to increasingly exploitative measures.

[–] Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Which can only happen when markets and corporations are deregulated.

A 20% increase in worked productivity should result in a 20% increase in employee compensation under the force of law.

Executive compensation should be limited to 3-5x the average or median employee compensation (whichever is lower) under the force of law.

Corporations are not people and should not be given the same rights as people, such as the right to free speech. If we are going to treat them as people, then any action that would result in a person going to jail for 5 years should result in a 5 year ban on doing business. Crimes like...oh, I don't know... killing 1000s of people or causing millions to lose their homes should be punished by permanent dissolution.

All workers, from janitors to executives, should be compensated via the same medium. If the exec gets paid in stock them everyone does. If the janitor is paid hourly/salary, then everyone is. Again, all under the force of law.

The highest marginal tax rate should be 100%. No individual should have access to $1 billion. That last penny in the millions and every cent afterward is totally taxed. You won capitalism. Congratulations.

I really do think that humanity is innately both cooperative and competitive l. Harnessing that cooperation is a proven and highly effective means of sriving society forward. Harnessing that competitiveness is a proven and highly effective means of improving material conditions within thay society, AS LONG AS THE PLAYING FIELD IS LEVEL.

Nobody wants to watch a sporting event where 1 team has to play handcuffed. That might be a bad analogy. The more I think about it that could be funny. But if it was always the same team that had to wear them, it'd get old pretty fast.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago

Everything you've said assumes the playing field was at one point fair to begin with, really.

Don't get me wrong, I would much prefer a more regulated Capitalism than what we have now. However, what we have now is a result of Capitalism and the power of accumulation it has, as those in power stack the deck in their favor. To rely on good people in government fighting back against Capitalists is to rely on hopes, not plans.

Workers should share ownership, without a Capitalist. Plain and simple.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Did you mean “regulated?”

[–] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Or maybe because the only currently known feasible alternative always ended up being even worse.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 7 months ago (2 children)
[–] SolarMech 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Revolutions tends to lead to powerful people seizing the state and centralizing everything.

The usual theory they bandy about it is that they are a "vanguard" of "elites" who will prepare the ground for socialism. And when they are done they will turn the system over to the workers to control it like promised, from the bottom up.

Spoilers : They never do, so far at least.

Instead they will take over any worker-led initiative and stifle it and shoot the organizers if they don't get the memo. You wind up with the state owning the means of production and the workers owning next to nothing and being worked as hard as under capitalism. You typically wind up with a centralized, bureaucratic dictatorship.

On top of that, because the rest of the world is in a different system and to become a socialist state one must break the other system's rules, you've pissed off most of the powerful people outside your border. This leads to a besieged mentality (and assassination attempts, and coup attempts, etc.) which keeps up the pressure on that state to keep being a dictatorial, paranoid mess. Oh and it can also lead to stiffened trade as you become a pariah. And historically the USSR's economy for instance performed worse than the US's.

That said, other alternatives don't have to include armed revolution. You can start a worker coop, and that is technically socialism (or anarchism? I forget), because the workers would own the means of production. You'd be able to do that within a capitalist framework without too much conflict and without pissing too many people off (really I can't see anyone but ideological goblins and competitors bitching about this. And competitors always bitch anyways). Of course, contrary to wage labour, you have to bear the financial risks yourself.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 months ago

Anarchism is always Socialist in form, co-operatives are Socialist, while anarchism is more about societal structure at large.

Either way, the issue with co-operatives is that there aren't systems in place to make them more common, nor will that ever be the case under Capitalism.

As for whether or not other systems have "always performed worse than Capitalism," that's just incorrect. You compared the USSR to the US, why? Would you compare Brazil to the US today? Both appear to be Capitalist. What's interesting is if you compare metrics of the USSR vs the Tsars and vs the Russian Federation, you'll find that quality of life was overwhelmingly tied to development, not economic system.

It seems reasonable to me to say that if a developed country was to become Socialist, it would perform better than a developed Capitalist country, as you remove issues like rent-seeking and worker exploitation. I think that's a reasonable conclusion, and I'm not even talking about USSR style Marxism-Leninism, it could be Democratic Socialism, Syndicalism, Anarchism, or any other form of Socialism.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Capitalism is about creating a bigger pie.

Politics is about more fairly distrubting the pie. Don't mistake failings of politics as failings of capitalism.

America once had a income tax of 90% for the highest tax bracket. Just because it is low now isn't due to capitalism

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)
  1. Capitalism is about individual ownership of the Means of Production. Socialism is about worker ownership of the Means of Production. Both are about production.

  2. Politics is not about distribution of Production so much as it is about creating systems and networks that people can use. The failings of Capitalism are still because of Capitalism.

  3. The 90% income tax being removed was because of Capitalism. Wealthy Capitalists appealed to politicians to have it removed, simple as. That is 100% a consequence of a system centered around petite-dictators.

[–] HumanPenguin@lemmy.cafe 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)
  1. the first part is only true In relation to the ideals of the supports of socialism.

Socialists care about the ownership of the means of production.

Capatalism dose not even consider the term. They only care about the result to indevidual growth.

As a example that makes my point. Elon musk and space ex is about rocket science to the engineers

To musk and other who consider space colonisation the only viable future for humanity. Rocket science is just the currently most effective way of achieving the goal.

To a socialist ownership of means of production is the goal.

To a capatalist it is just the best way the currently see of achieving the goal of indevidual wealth.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›