i don't hate communism. i hate the version of it that has left lasting damage on my country after 45 years.
this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2026
817 points (98.0% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
4000 readers
902 users here now
A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.
RULES:
1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.
2 No Trolling
3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, anti-communism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.
4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.
5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.
6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc. This includes instance shaming.
Introduction to Socialism (external links)
Marxism-Leninism Study Guide: Basic Course
Marxism-Leninism Study Guide: Advanced Course
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I hate the version of it that was explained to me by my father who lived in it.
Same logic:
You don't hate capitalism. You hate the version of it taught to you by someone who took the easiest educational track possible.
actually, i do hate capitalism with all its complexity too. imo the market is a useful tool when kept in check by having to compete with planned, government-subsidised alternatives, but private ownership of capital is what generates 99% of the problems with it. either the workers should own the capital or the public should. the best option is probably somewhere between the two.
I agree - but the workers and the public should be the same entity!
imo the distinction is between the workers of that particular organisation vs the public as a whole. there's still value in the people actually close to the work making the decisions (a lot of the failures of the soviet system can be attributed to party officials overruling experts) but it should be counterbalanced by the public looking out for each other, so that no single org or collection of orgs stand above the rest of society.
Actually I hate it cause my parents and grandparents suffered under it in the GDR. None of them own yachts or houses either.
Socialism isn't far enough. We need anarcho-com.
Anarchist tendencies have some inherent philosophical and practical flaws unfortunately. Anarchism relies on a naive, idealistic view of human nature, falsely assuming people are inherently good and cooperative once state authority is removed. Selfishness does stem from capitalist competition and private property, meaning solidarity cannot simply be unlocked by abolishing the state, but must be consciously organized through a new economic system.
Good point but what your parents and grandparents went through was not just socialism and to pretend that it was only socialism is disingenuous at best and propaganda at worst.
Had an exchange that went like
"The workers don't know how to run the business"
"Did the owner tell you that?"
"... shit."
Also workers don't have to run the business, they can elect / delegate someone to do that.
If that owners managerial skills are truly necessary for the business' survival then they should have no problem explaining that to their fellow workers and getting elected to manage. They just won't get all the profit...
I've worked for some small businesses that the owners themselves could not be trusted to run operations without fucking everything up.
Size of organizations really is an important factor. For small-medium businesses, the owner probably needs to have the skills to operate things themselves, for medium-to-large the owners skills set changes to people managment (see the Peter Principal). Then you get to the places where the CEOs job is less managing people but setting directives at the request of the board and being the cult of personality/fall-guy for the investors.
Its that last one where I get why it works that way, but its baffling how an organization gets there without someone asking if thats a bad idea.
These were auto shops with 8-15 employees, the owners had started the business when you wrote appointments on a desk calendar and there were three oil filters on the shelf, one for Chevy, one for Chrysler and one for Ford. Ask them to make an appointment or order the correct oil filter for a 2016 Kia Sedona was expecting too much.
What's more depressing than socialist architecture? Homelessness and starvation in a land with plenty.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The issue isn't that I don't like socialism as most proponents describe it. I also like Hogwarts as the books describe it. The issue is I still think trying to build Hogwarts is dumb. Just like trying to implementing socialism the way people described it to me. It just clearly wouldn't work, because people don't magically stop being selifsh and greedy for money and power when you change economic systems.
I've said this a few times before, but it's wrong to think that most people are greedy/selfish. The capitalist class and the political figures they buy are extreme outliers. We over-index on them due to a mix of negativity bias and the fact that they say everyone is greedy to justify their own positions of power.
Just think about it: Humans are an inherently cooperative species. We developed language so that we could work more effectively in groups and slowly built up complex social relationships that lead to us becoming wildly successful. The fact that some psychopaths learned to take advantage of our group dynamics shouldn't damn everyone they are exploiting.
This isn't even about being selfless/altruistic: The vast majority of us just straight up do better when we support each other. Even if the other person doesn't directly reciprocate, living in a society where it is the norm to help others comes around to help you at some point.
But beyond that, there just isn't a lot of value in essentializing people like that. Very little about modern society is natural. We aren't born knowing how to do math or drive cars, but we have the capacity to learn those things. We've grown through social evolution, not biological. That's why a critical part of building socialism is raising class consciousness. We aren't just changing the structure of society, we're changing the people to be able to create that new structure. Just as serfs learned that they need not be subservient to their lords before they were able to self govern, we must teach people that they have the power and the right to turn over the current hierarchy and create something better.
You are right - one has to look at ALL of human history. Most of it was in cooperation. Give, take, share and everyone has plenty. Feudalism and after that capitalism have shrunk our peer group further and further and told us selfishness is the core of the human psychology - it is not and we will overcome this.
So much word salad and none of it is relevant. Who cares if politicians and bilionaiers are extreme outliers or not? They exist. Capitalism as we have it now does not deal with them properly. But every socialist system I have ever seen concentrates power even more than capitalism. At least there is some split of interest between billionaiers, politicians, and milionaiers. Plus billionaiers are not a very cohesive group as their interests also do not align with each other perfectly.
In pretty much every socialist system I have seen proposed, all power is handed to elected politicians. And by human neture, the outliers will get elected, just like they do currently. No magical fix for gullible voters in socialism. That is why you never have "real socialism" in history. It turns to autocracy because of how the system interacts with human nature.
"No matter what points you make I'm dead set in my beliefs and I'm never changing them no matter what."
There, I shortened your walls of text for you.
I am very concerned by the number of liberals on lemmy who seem adamant about not wanting to read more than a tweet's worth of text. It's not like I write books. In theory they're adults. They should be able to read a couple paragraphs if they want to have a serious conversation.
Ah, thank you! So much more readable than the 4 pagaraphs from darthelmet.
I dont disagree with the notion that a "changing of the guard" won't fix everything. It just means there's different people that risk being corrupted, assuming they weren't already. Like how after the French Revolution it just meant there different rich people in control.
But to say something we shouldn't even try because a certain percentage of the population is greedy, or psychopathic, or whatever other trait you want, isn't that great of an argument. You could say capitalism will never work because people are too dishonest and will lie to fool investors. Which is something that actually happens right now. Enron. FTX. Theranos.
This is THE issue imo. How do we deal with these people? I dont think ANY political philosophy can address that effectively. The original idea of splitting power into three houses wasn't bad, but these past two years have shown it wasn't enough.
But every socialist system I have ever seen concentrates power even more than capitalism.
Billionaires go to prison and get executed in China, because power is concentrated in the Party and politics are in command.
That seems pretty fucking good to me.
Executions without fair trial sound good to you? Yep, .ml
Believing billionaires deserve to live? Yup, reddit.world
Just say you hate democracy and you love boot.
May I add the “owning vast media conglomerate mega-phone allowing the yacht owner to blast said explanation to the entire world” part?
No, they hate “the other” would get treated kindly like them. There are some vengeful/racist garbage that have this “out group” damning thing, which sets us all into the pain with high ass premiums and shit. They paint over their rationalization as “rugged individualism,” but it’s basically “no, doesn’t deserve the services that I should get.”
And yes, above.
Imagine your politician showing up at the Ford dealership telling you you've been cut off. You can't buy another Ford F-150 King Ranch they say. You look up at the American flag and it is red with yellow stars.
view more: next ›