Ghisline Maxwell’s dad published our textbooks
this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2026
840 points (97.8% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
4000 readers
732 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 don't hate communism. i hate the version of it that has left lasting damage on my country after 45 years.
Not all communism must be authoritarian. Any and all authoritarians must be burned at the stake for the common good. Only then can we have a peacefully society.
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.
I think a significant number of us hate whatever system we are living in right now, no matter what it's called.
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.
I know that old people and children are not workers in the strict sense of the word, but in a broader definition they are. Everyone should be part of "the workers" in my opinion. In an ideal "soviet" system workers are organized in councils and democracy a grassroot endevour. The problem is the way to get there. At first every socialist system will be attacked by reactionist forces. Lenin argued that it is therefor necessary to have a communist party. This contains the danger of it getting corrupted and establising an authoritarian system. There seems no way around that. Lenin argues that in a capitalist world, it is not possible to just jump to a communist utopia. The state has to wither away.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
What's more depressing than socialist architecture? Homelessness and starvation in a land with plenty.
load more comments
(1 replies)
May I add the “owning vast media conglomerate mega-phone allowing the yacht owner to blast said explanation to the entire world” part?
view more: next ›