Christmas, for all its commercial trappings, has an undeniably communist heart that might just make it the most subtly anti-capitalist holiday of all. Think about it: Santa, with his free gift distribution system, isn’t exactly running a profit-driven enterprise. He operates on pure equity, ensuring every child, regardless of wealth or status, gets a little holiday joy—an egalitarian dream if ever there was one.

Then there’s gift-giving itself, which feels like a seasonal exercise in wealth redistribution. Everyone pools resources to ensure others are cared for, with little concern for getting equal value in return. It’s a brief moment where generosity and shared happiness trump personal gain.

Even Christmas dinner carries the spirit of collectivism. The table is filled with food meant to be shared equally, where no one’s taking more turkey just because they "earned it." And the decorations? A public good, freely enjoyed by all, spreading joy without demanding payment.

At its core, Christmas is about looking beyond yourself. Whether it’s donating to charity, helping a neighbor, or simply spending time with loved ones, the season prioritizes human connection over profit. For one day, at least, the world takes a pause from its usual grind to celebrate solidarity, generosity, and care—a reminder that the best things in life can’t be bought. Santa might not be a card-carrying socialist, but he’s certainly wearing the red suit with pride. All I want for Christmas is the means of production.

To a certain degree, I expect some confusion, some talking past each other, given the complexity of the concepts and the sheer volume of information that one side might know, but the other isn’t aware of. For instance, the words “capitalism” and “socialism can have different meanings in different contexts. Telling people to “go read Marx” can be a pretty big slog to acquire wisdom that is only vaguely suggested by the requester. And, having spent so much time reading Marx, I can see why socialists have little time to read anything else, like what functions capital markets perform.

However, often socialists just have trouble with simple, verifiable facts about what’s going on with the world right now.

I was having a conversation, and amongst a few points the socialist was calling out, he dropped what should have immediately been a red flag to anyone engaged in actual, skeptical thinking:

“Blackrock currently owns about half of the housing market.”

That sounds obviously made up, so I just ignored it. Why waste time dealing with bizarre assertions that no rational person would believe on its face?

However, this was not a good enough response for the socialist. Apparently, I wasn’t “engaging.” And they kept pushing more and more, accusing me of “dodging” the point because I “don’t have a good answer.”

I don’t like engaging bizarre assertions because of Brandolini’s Law, which states that:

The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.

If I’m actually going to engage every bullshit assertion a socialist throws out, then I’m doing all the work, and they’re just slinging bullshit. It’s a lot easier just to pull bullshit out of your ass and sling it on Reddit than it is to refute it. Because effective argumentation and refutation requires actually engaging with facts. You can’t just decide whatever you want to believe is true and pretend it just is. You can’t just take something you heard on social media and parrot it like a trained pet. You actually have to do research and figure out what’s really going on.

So, there I was, in the ironic position of having a socialist accuse me of being “lazy” and not engaging their fact-free assertions that they couldn’t bring themselves to put any effort into researching themselves, when a mild curiosity in the subject would have revealed that no, it’s complete bullshit.

So after the socialist kept pushing me, and shaming me, and declaring victory, I was forced to burst his bubble and let him know that he’s just parroting bullshit that’s easy to refute with a simple google search.

This is the kind of bullshit story that goes around social media, that socialists, living in their little ideological bubbles, consume and then spew the bullshit back into the internet. And all the while pretending that intelligent people have a responsibility to come in and do the actual thinking work for them because they can’t be bothered. As if the socialist had just done a really smart thing by sucking up bullshit and spewing it out somewhere it hadn’t been spewed before. As if that’s an intellectual contribution.

So, please, socialists. I know you’re all certified geniuses on Marxism, class struggle, etc, but if you could just stop sucking up bullshit and spewing it back into the internet, I would appreciate it. I really don’t have time to do the thinking for all of you.

I've got a question for the libertarians here. Imagine a private university, funded entirely privately, starts teaching that state interventionism is good. Economics courses promote regulation, social programs, maybe even socialist ideas. They aren't silencing opposing views, but this interventionist perspective becomes prominent.

How do libertarians reconcile this? Is it simply a free market success - the university teaches what it wants, and students choose to pay for it? A win for free speech, even if the ideas are antithetical to libertarianism?

Or does it present a market failure? Could these institutions, perhaps benefiting indirectly from the state, be using their influence to undermine the very principles of free markets and individual liberty by shaping future generations' views? Does allowing private institutions to teach ideas that could lead to less freedom create a contradiction within libertarian ideology?

One of the things I’ve noticed in capitalism vs socialism debates is how rarely critiques of Marxism engage with Marx’s ideas in a meaningful way. Most of the time, arguments come across as polemical or reactionary: “Marxism equals Stalinism,” or “It’s just envy of the rich.” While there’s room for ideological disagreements, these oversimplifications don’t hold up to scrutiny. Compare that to thinkers like Karl Popper, Joseph Schumpeter, or Friedrich Hayek—none of whom were Marxists, but all of whom took Marx seriously enough to offer critiques that had actual depth. We’d all benefit from more of that kind of engagement.

Popper, for instance, didn’t just dismiss Marx as a utopian crank. He critiqued Marxism for its reliance on historicism— the idea that history unfolds according to inevitable laws-and showed how that made it unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific. Schumpeter, on the other hand, acknowledged Marx’s insights into capitalism’s dynamism and instability, even as he rejected Marx’s conclusions about its inevitable collapse. And Hayek? He didn’t waste time calling Marxism a moral failure but focused on the practical issues of central planning, like the impossibility of efficiently allocating resources without market prices. All three approached Marxism seriously, identifying what they saw as valid and then systematically arguing against what they believed were its flaws.

Now, look at Popper and Ayn Rand side by side, because they show two completely different ways to critique Marxism. Popper approached Marxism like a scientist analyzing a hypothesis. He focused on methodology, arguing that Marxism’s reliance on historicism—its claim to predict the inevitable course of history—was flawed because it wasn’t falsifiable. He acknowledged Marx’s valuable contributions, like his insights into class conflict and capitalism’s dynamics, and then dismantled the idea that Marxism could stand as a scientific theory. Popper’s conclusions were measured: he didn’t call Marxism “evil,” just incorrect as a framework for understanding history. That’s what makes his critique compelling—it’s grounded in careful reasoning, not reactionary rhetoric.

Rand, on the other hand, is the opposite. Her method starts with her axiomatic belief in individualism and laissez-faire capitalism and denounces Marxism as an affront to those values. Her conclusions aren’t measured at all—she paints Marxism as outright evil, a system rooted in envy and malice. There’s no real engagement with Marx’s historical or economic analysis, just moral condemnation. As a result, Rand’s critique feels shallow and dismissive. It might work for people already on her side, but it doesn’t hold up as a serious intellectual challenge to Marxism. The key difference here is that Popper’s critique tries to convince through logic and evidence, while Rand’s is about preaching to the choir.

The point isn’t that Marxism is beyond criticism-far from it. But if you’re going to argue against it, take the time to understand it and engage with it on its own terms. Thinkers like Popper, Schumpeter, and Hayek weren’t afraid to wrestle with the complexity of Marx’s ideas, and that’s what made their critiques so powerful. If the best you can do is throw out Cold War-era slogans or Randian moral absolutes, you’re not engaging, you’re just posturing.

This is partially me addressing anyone who has said I'm a Socialist on one of my many posts about my hybrid of Cooperative Capitalism. But I also want to share my thoughts on Socialism in general:

Market Socialist: While I love one-vote-one-share co-ops, I’m not a Market Socialist because I believe in other cases businesses should be able to be structured like Publix Supermarkets, which is 20% owned by the founder's family and 80% by employees, and I think founders should be able to have higher classes of shares and control over the company. But they shouldn’t get to own their employees:

• Lack of Incentivization in Market Socialism: Most founders won’t want to start one-vote-one-share businesses, leaving only collectives as an option. This approach has failed historically, as seen in Tito's Yugoslavia, the USSR, and is true in China and Vietnam today

Marxism: Attempts to enforce complete class equality always results in authoritarian control, stifling individuality and freedom. Also, I don't agree with Marx's views on things like labor, and that all value comes from it.

Anarchism: Without a centralized authority, you will either get chaos or the rise of informal power structures. Also, there is no proven model for managing complex systems like healthcare, infrastructure, and defense solely by voluntary cooperation

So obviously we know how Amazon kinda killed out smaller businesses, but to appease shareholders, Amazon must grow constantly as an almost singular goal

This will happen on two fronts: expanding the business, and reducing the costs

On the expanding the business part, that means they’ll have to find ways to put MORE companies out of business and have more people buying from Amazon. This might mean expanding into new markets also, which we kinda saw with something like AWS

Eventually, they have resources so vast that they can preemptively snuff out competition. This already happened with places like diapers.com, where they simply undercut the business and lost some money to gain market share

However the extra bad part is that Amazon will want to reduce costs. One of the biggest costs they have is labor. They’ll try to reduce headcount and automate every possible thing they can. In their perfect world, every quarter, the revenue will go up while salaries/head count goes down

Skilled labor is also seen as something of a threat because it gives workers better negotiating power. They want to find a way to ensure they don’t need skilled labor, and since that’s no longer a path to a good salary, these skills are no longer taught widely

So eventually, pretty much everyone is out of work or on an extremely low salary, and no one can really afford Amazon anymore, so their profit declines, meaning their value goes down. They have to downscale, but since everyone else is out of business too, they don’t really have anyone to sell to

I think also housing and food will eventually become more monopolized, meaning that the costs will effectively just be whatever they can squeeze out of people to force growth. Chances are, most people are only going to be able to afford housing and food and no luxuries at all

Since most of the actual “value” is in stock and the stock is declining, even the rich people aren’t totally safe

I made this debate style edit to highlight contrasting postmodern viewpoints of the "truth" from a capitalist and socialist perspective. Please give it a like if you do like it and I'll look for other speeches to compare/contrast:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iW9AaNJZro

In their most basic and boiled down forms, what are the two systems. What are examples of successful uses of either? Is either really better or just two seperate things that work in different context?

After all, they are people, legally. Or with strict property rights under capitalist democracies (intellectual, land, structures, equipment, vehicles & profit), should they continue to adhere to the philosophy of individualism which makes everyone accountable for themselves, only.

You may often see an argument that Marx is wrong because p is true. Strangely enough, you can also find Marx explicitly affirming p. Here are two examples, with Marx saying the same.

Nobody makes decisions based on labor values.

"Hence, when we bring the products of our labour into relation with each other as values, it is not because we see in these articles the material receptacles of homogeneous human labour. Quite the contrary: whenever, by an exchange, we equate as values our different products, by that very act, we also equate, as human labour, the different kinds of labour expended upon them. We are not aware of this, nevertheless we do it." -- Karl Marx, Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 1, Section 4.

Both sides to a transaction gain.

"So far as regards use-values, it is clear that both parties may gain some advantage. Both part with goods that, as use-values, are of no service to them, and receive others that they can make use of." -- Karl Marx, Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 5

Or you will some assigning a proposition to Marx that he explicitly denies. Here is an example:

Marx thinks exploitation of labor is immoral.

"This sphere ... within whose boundaries the sale and purchase of labour-power goes on, is in fact a very Eden of the innate rights of man. There alone rule Freedom, Equality, Property and Bentham. Freedom, because both buyer and seller of a commodity, say of labour-power, are constrained only by their own free will. They contract as free agents, and the agreement they come to, is but the form in which they give legal expression to their common will. Equality, because each enters into relation with the other, as with a simple owner of commodities, and they exchange equivalent for equivalent. Property, because each disposes only of what is his own. And Bentham, because each looks only to himself. The only force that brings them together and puts them in relation with each other, is the selfishness, the gain and the private interests of each. Each looks to himself only, and no one troubles himself about the rest, and just because they do so, do they all, in accordance with the pre-established harmony of things, or under the auspices of an all-shrewd providence, work together to their mutual advantage, for the common weal and in the interest of all." -- Karl Marx, Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 6.

What other examples can you find?

[EDIT - Help yourself and anyone else that you can, that is. Above title is not a call for selfishness, just refutation of revolutionary illusions]

Globally, neoliberal capitalism has pretty much won, but it is not solving any of our problems, neither climatic, geopolitical, economic or social, in fact it is worsening them.

Inequality is increasing and global economic/political tensions between superpowers are mounting and there is no way that fossil fuels are going to stop being used before catastrophic consequences are realised. This is not just because of the power of oil companies etc, but also because entire countries' economies and development are hugely reliant on it. Thus, climatic collapse and all of its resultant impacts are inevitable. That's if the nukes don't fly first and/or the middle east doesn't completely collapse

Additionally, none of the nominally 'socialist' states with any real power or scale like China have or ever will actually achieve 'communism' or even actual 'socialism', they will always just blame imperialism or say they must continue the development of their means of production, because in fact all they care for is power. Blind faith in such a utopia being achieved reminds me of the evangelicals talking about the return of Jesus, no matter how much you hide behind supposed 'theory'..

And the libsocs and anarchists will never have enough power to do any real change without their 'revolution' collapsing in on itself like a dying star, like do you really think you can contend with the global nuclear powers and all the powers of capital and state? Large-scale revolutions have only really worked with authoritarianism, except such revolutions have not been revolutions at all but merely the exchange of power from one elite to another. So it is not something I believe in, despite my flair.

The only hope, I suppose, for people who oppose capitalism is to create their own independent small scale societies or co-operative communities off-grid. This is why I still identify as I do in my flair because philosophically and principally it is what I am. But in reality neither normal people with normal jobs or terminally online redditors are ever going to do that. Not that I blame them. It wouldn't be easy.

I believe that capitalists, that is to say people that favour capitalism, and communists, (and perhaps socialists too), both look at private property in moral terms, but see it in a very different way to each other, and do not necessarily understand how the other side sees it.

I made this illustration (yes, using AI, leave me alone) to capture that difference. This image was meant to speak for itself, but the post was continuously marked as low effort and removed by the mods/bots. I hope the brief explanation above suffices. A picture is worth a thousand words and all that.

Link: https://ibb.co/r636zRQ

I got banned for saying: "Stalinism is not communism, it was a dictatorship."

[real communism was Paris Commune 1817, Anarchism in Spain, Councilrepublic in Germany, Hungarian Soviet Republic and so on]

So what do you make of this capitalists?

Liberalism and capitalism, at their core, sought to transform the structure of hierarchy, making it more accessible rather than hereditary. In the traditional feudal order, power and wealth were determined by birthright, perpetuating rigid social strata. Liberalism, emerging from the Enlightenment, advocated for individual rights and opportunities, aiming to dismantle aristocratic privilege in favor of meritocratic advancement. Capitalism, as an economic system, furthered this by emphasizing the role of market competition, where individuals could theoretically rise or fall based on their abilities and entrepreneurial ventures, rather than their family lineage. While this shift allowed for greater mobility and the possibility of upward advancement, it still preserved the essential framework of hierarchy—now based on economic success, wealth accumulation, and access to resources—creating a new form of social stratification that was less about birth and more about access to capital and opportunities.

Socialism, in its more informed and evolved form, emerges as a natural ascent from social democracy, particularly in the context of the world's happiest nations. Countries that rank high in measures of well-being and quality of life, such as those in Scandinavia, have embraced social democratic principles, creating robust welfare states, universal healthcare, and strong public education systems. However, these nations often face the realization that, despite their successes, the underlying capitalist structures continue to foster inequality and environmental degradation. As the social and environmental crises grow more urgent, a more radical form of socialism offers a vision for deeper systemic change—one that seeks not only to enhance welfare but to restructure the economy to ensure shared ownership, participatory democracy, and sustainable development. In this sense, socialism represents the next step, born from the successes and limitations of social democracy, striving to create a truly egalitarian society where happiness is not only measured by material prosperity but by collective well-being, social cohesion, and ecological balance.

1. Because you are evil
2. All criticism you make are actually only relevant to pseudo hyperborean primtivistic anarcho Georgian monarcho post grunge syndicalism not socialism as a whole. No I will not explain my ideology.
3. I don’t even need to explain why. You just need to read all 500000 pages of Schneiderheimershostakovichschneitel (I haven’t fucking touched it). No I will not make my own points.
4. You hate the poor.

Its very clear that we have differences in ideology, but fundamentally I am sure all capitalists believe people as a whole would be better off under capitalism than socialism. It's not that we don't care for poor, suffering people; we just don't think we'd be better off under socialism. It's obnoxious, and I am tired of seeing it. I do not need to hear a speech about the plight of working class people. Hearing that only reinforces my belief in my ideology. From my point of view you want us to have it even worse!

Often times when you ask an Ancom why ancaps would be chased out of their society, you get the same answer. It is because ancoms do not allow private property.

When you will ask them "but what if someone takes all of your food and leaves you to starve?" you will see that they respond by saying that personal property must be protected but private property (Capital Goods) are not tolerated.

The problem here is that their is no distinction between personal property and private property.

If I have food on my table in my house that I am intending to feed to my children, and someone breaks down the door and takes the food, leaving us to starve, you will say that person has violated our personal property correct?

If I grow wheat in a field and someone comes and harvests it the day before me, reaping where they did not sow, this is still the exact same theft as before, only now I can prove that I labored to produce the food. But because the field, which are the means of production (capital good) cannot be privately owned my labor is worthless. I lose the right to grow my own food in this field and the theft committed against my family is now permitted.

This applies to the food on my table, and the trees and cutting equipment used to build the door of my house. This applies to every car that comes off an assembly line, and every microchip for every computer.

Ancom does not ban theft of personal property, it just moves the point of acceptable theft from the home to the point of production. No one will have an incentive to work the fields, or run the assembly line, or manufacture microchips certainly. Especially when their labor is rewarded less than a person who spends his time travelling from factory to factory taking what he wants.

Ancoms will say "people will donate their time to manufacturing microchips" which is unlikely to begin with, but even if true, people who did not work will end up taking most produced goods.

All personal property starts out as private property. If you cannot protect private property, you are not protecting personal property.

EDIT: Right now most ancoms are either attempting to answer earnestly or saying 'read theory'. It is not my job to read your literature, I am a Capitalist. If you don't know the answer please quietly take the L, because telling other people to do your homework just proves you can't answer the question.

For those not blessed by our lord and savior J. Posadas, posadism was / is a weird trotskyist sect that want the world to have a good ol' nuclear armageddon because they believe that aliens will come down from the sky to help us build communism when they the detect radiation. They also believe that we will be able to talk to dolphins.

With a world encompassing nuclear war looking more likely by the day, wouldn't it be hilarious if all that actually happened?

Here are some defintiions of socialism from socialists:

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/15x04bi/comment/jx4towi/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

This socialist thinks that the unelected CCP members who represent 7% of the population and run the economy are considered socialist

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/15urj8h/comment/jx5vsns/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

This socialist thinks maybe even America is socialist

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/15t8vsk/comment/jwjl0rt/?context=3

This socialist thinks china is state capitalism and will achieve socialism in 2050

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/15r8gy9/comment/jw7bt4t/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

This socialist thinks communism isn't socialism

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/15wj9k5/comment/jx1buau/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

This socialist thinks the state cannot be socialist

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/15x799a/comment/jx4p5e3/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

This socialist thinks the USSR was state capitalism

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/16dio0n/comment/jzrz68w/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

This socialist thinks NASA is socialism

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/16dio0n/comment/jzufoub/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

This socialist thinks the US military is socialism

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/174qujd/comment/k4aynpo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

This socialist thinks socialism is when there are no bosses/hierarchy

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/176dmk3/comment/k4lnldn/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

This socialist thinks that nation states are not compatible with socialism

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/17d8chn/comment/k6kjsud/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

This socialist thinks government ownership of means of production is socialism

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/17hpycu/comment/k6rn2qb/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

This socialist thinks any job provided by the govenrment is socialism

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/17yix0i/comment/ka6qg4c/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

This socialist thinks billionaires are consistent with a dictatorship of the proletariat an ML form of socialism

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/120o5rs/comment/jdjpqnl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

This socialist thinks social programs like OSHA, FICA, FEMA, Social security in the US are socialism

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/120rc2y/comment/jdna5j5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

This socialist thinks the govenrment telling private businesses what to do is socialism

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/14j2xal/comment/jplcb1y/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

This socialist thinks socialism would include moneyless profits

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/14j2xal/comment/jpkcl14/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

This socialist thinks socialism is worker emancipation

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/14xbx4t/comment/jrmkrs5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

This socialist thinks socialism is public ownership of the means of production with production for use instead of profit

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/153el99/comment/jsluhvp/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

This socialist thinks socialism is trade unions

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/15vignh/comment/jww16ko/?context=3

This socialist thinks that socialism is socializing means of production to communities and not the state

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/15uvbr5/comment/jwxocid/?context=3

This socialist says China has never been socialist

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/15x04bi/comment/jx4towi/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

These socialists thinks that china is socialist

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/10xy42r/comment/j7vq11b/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

This socialist thinks socialism is turning everyone into business owners

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/110m0wx/comment/j8li7ea/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

This socialist thinks socialism is killing people for wanting to make money

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/114pou6/government_action_is_socialism_the_post_to_end/

This socialist thinks Chernobyl was socialism

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/11khifp/comment/jb8nvdb/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

This socialist thinks socialized healthcare is socialism

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/18fykf5/comment/kcyr5y0/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

This socialist thinks worker coops ARE socialism

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/18whma0/comment/kfydz51/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

This socialist thinks I'm CLUELESS if I think coops are NOT socialism

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/18fykf5/comment/kcybgp0/?context=3

This socialist does NOT think worker coops are socialism

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/18lang5/comment/kdxvdjy/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

This socialist does NOT think worker coops and communes are socialism

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/11ui5ti/comment/jczstlq/?context=3

This socialist thinks public utilities like roads, sewer, garbage pick up, street lights, police, water are socialism

Credit to u/sharpie20

If you ask the average conservative sort why Donald Trump ran for office, they will tell you something along the lines of, "He wanted to have political power to complete his tri-fecta with fame, fortune, and finally power." or "He is a patriotic man who just loves America and saw an opportunity to save it."

I would suggest another reason, however. I would suggest to you that Donald Trump ran for office because of a beregrudging awareness that has begun to seep into the more self-aware members of the upper echelons of wealth in our society: class consciousness.

From this perspective Donald Trump is less the sympathetic hero figure who is on a crusade to save America from the clutches of idpol doom, and more the visionary dark-empath who correctly assessed the ruin of his social and economic class should the establishment have been allowed to continue making its depredations so obvious to an increasingly rebellious proletariat.

You can see a similar mentality expressed by Elon Musk. Elon has correctly intuited that if an angry mob is inevitable, then it is best to be at the head of that mob directing it in every possible direction other than toward oneself.

I would also suggest the following: consider this not as a cynical and demoralizing scenario, but rather the recognition that our hour is finally at hand. idpol has finally received a most devastating blow, from which it will not soon recover. Class consciousness now graces the lips of the left, right, and center. We live in a time of flux when minds are much more open to change, and now is our opportunity to make that change unavoidable. This is the era of class consciousness.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014/

I'll go first: "For 10 thousand years the Nazi Communist state has been the source of evil in human history until the Founding Fathers created capitalism and liberty through the US.

Most of people in the goverment are commie-nazis.

Every statist is a nazi socialist.

The US is the most libertarian and capitalist country that ever existed" -some libertarian.

Yeah it's pretty bad. What is the worst comment or argument in this sub that you saw?

AGI capturing the market will lead to UBI and of course in socialism workers own the means of production.

I feel that socialism is preferable because there is still ownership, compared to a UBI where people have no ownership and are waiting for handouts. There's different ideas on how to implement UBI. Some suggest nationalizing certain sectors but in general there's no plan. Basically a figure it out as we go mentality. So I'm of the mind that AGI with socialism is better than AGI without it. At least people would have ownership and not be dependent.

Curious to know your thoughts about it.

& btw I'm not anti-ai or a socialist. I'm finishing up my compsci degree and am pretty deep into the AI space. I think AGI could be one of the most important developments of our generation. I've just been thinking about it because it will be a real scenario soon.

Let’s consider a region with limited resources where it’s impossible to leave. Imagine a human community in a state of nature within this region.

The people here are free; if one among them is strong enough, they could gather and then control all the resources in the area. In doing so, this person would strip all other individuals of their freedom. To prevent this situation, we need an external force.

Now, let’s approach this from a Marxist perspective, where there’s an assumption. This assumption is that, until someone in the state of nature puts up a fence and claims a piece of land as their own, people do not act out of self-interest, are not ambitious, and do not have the desire to possess all resources. To examine this, we first need to ask a few questions.

i) Are the resources in the region sufficient to meet the needs of all the people living there? ii) How do we define need? What counts as a need?

We need to consider these two questions together.

Regarding question ii), determining need is not about distributing an existing need but about defining what it is—that is, to determine it. In this context, we’ll divide needs into two categories: emotional and physical.

Our physical needs are simply the energy required for our bodies to survive. Our emotional needs are the feelings necessary for our mental satisfaction (such as happiness and peace). An individual can only be healthy when both of these conditions are fully met. There should be no hierarchy between these two because they can affect or trigger each other; they cannot be considered independently. Marxism establishes a hierarchy between physical and emotional needs, asserting that physical needs are more primary. I’ll address my commentary on this in the continuation of the text. Now that we understand this, let’s move on to the first question.

i) Are the resources in the region sufficient to meet the needs of all the people living there?

Marxism assumes the answer to this question is yes or believes that whether the existing resources are sufficient or not, they should be distributed equally. In Marx’s philosophy of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” physical needs are essentially equal, but problems arise with emotional needs.

Now let’s return to the Marxist state of nature and discuss why the assumption made by Marxism is incorrect and why mutual interest arises in the first place.

Let’s assume there are enough resources to meet everyone’s physical needs—let’s call this resource potatoes. Since there is no state in the state of nature, everyone can actually take whatever resources they want, but they are sharing and considerate of others; they are not selfish. However, when it comes to emotional needs—let’s call this fruit because fruit is sweet and provides pleasure and happiness (here, I want to draw your attention to the emotional aspect, that is, happiness, which is also a need)—it might seem that a person can ask for and receive fruit from someone else because the region is a sharing place. But no, even though fruit is a need for everyone, there’s a fundamental question lying here.

iii) Are there enough resources to meet the emotional needs (fruit) of all the people in the region?

The answer to this question is clearly no, because while you can meet your emotional needs with potatoes, not everyone can do the same. Some need fruit, some need vegetables, and some need potatoes. The need arising from this will make fruit valuable, and since the fruit resource will be limited, it will eventually create conflict. Even if a person is not selfish or does not take the fruit you have, the resources available in the region will be insufficient for them. And after a while all those emotional resources are wasted, the newborn or others that is not own those resources will eventually want to satisfy those needs therefore there is only one choice: stealing. Therefore people would want to put fences and gates to their resources. From here, you shouldn’t think that the resources meeting emotional needs are static or fixed, because with the necessary freedom and ability, some people, if not everyone, can create these resources themselves and those needs are not strictly limited to resources but mostly yes, or lets say dependent. Let’s say this person needs a raw material like potatoes to meet their emotional needs; in this case, if the person can do this, they should not be hindered. Similarly, while emotional needs seemed very concrete here, in reality, they are not so concrete; there are many variations that change from person to person. I should also mention that once the emotional need is met, it doesn’t matter whether the person eats potatoes or fruit; fundamentally, every human has an equal stomach.

Now that we understand the state of nature, let’s move on to external forces, that is, the state.

We have understood why the state of nature is not as depicted in Marxist understanding. From this point, to meet and equalize these varying needs of people, we need a force—this is something inherent and necessary in communism. Because needs bring along the power required to meet them, and to balance this power, we need an external force; that is, the state must distribute resources equally to everyone. As a result of this equal distribution, the following problem arises: The state may not have sufficient resources to meet a person’s needs; in this case, it is not possible for that person to obtain this resource, nor is it possible for them to meet their needs, meaning the opportunity to meet their needs when they have resources is taken away from them. They do not have this freedom. The state cannot fully simulate this situation because, although we tried to determine needs above, there is no clear definition of needs. The only system that autonomously determines this is supply and demand.

In liberal thought, this situation is possible, but as we said at the very beginning, there is no limit to this; that is, when a person is not subjected to any restrictions, they can seize all resources. In this case, to prevent this and to ensure that other people can access these resources and meet their needs, we need an external force. What this external force should do here is to make access to these resources fair, rather than taking full control of the resources. For example, if there is an apple at the top of a mountain, the probability of both people getting this apple should depend solely on their own abilities; they should not have any inherent superiority from birth. From this arises the problem that when a person takes control of resources, their competition with others can never be fair because they have gained an advantage with sufficient resources (capital). In other words, the problem actually starts when that person’s freedom infringes upon your freedom. How do we solve this problem? Here, the subject shifts a bit from the state of nature to modernity. As John Stuart Mill said, every person should be provided with a suitable space to achieve their own happiness; if a person will reach happiness in this way, they should be given the necessary freedom to achieve it. What we’ve discussed is not pure selfishness; as people meet these needs, they also contribute to society. If we hinder their development, we also lose out. I always think like this: for example, you are currently living in Germany and have no intention of leaving Germany; in this case, the inside of Germany is sufficient to meet your needs. However, some people need to leave Germany to be happy; in this case, they should be given that freedom—not to be misunderstood here, there is a difference between granting freedom and directly giving happiness. This is similar to John Stuart Mill’s harm principle.

However, although I believe we’ve relatively determined the ideal here, in particular situations, the solution is not that simple. Personally, three things come to my mind: preventing monopolization, ensuring complete justice and rights in education, and the importance of institutions against unfair competition.

It should also be added that in the new world, raw material capital is not as important as it was in the old world; similarly, intellectual or knowledge capital is important, so equality in education is quite significant.

Let me also share a personal anecdote, even though it doesn’t exactly fit the situations above, it was one of the most important experiences that shaped my opinion. When I was going to university, I always changed two buses and took a train; this situation was more exhausting than you might think because the buses were not always empty, and in such situations, only the words of the bully mattered. Since there was no factor like money in worker-worker relationships, it was a complete case of survival of the fittest. Later, I bought a car for myself and started going to school with it. Here, since the subject is very particular, you might say that in communism, you can also buy your own car, etc., but I advise you to try to understand the philosophy I want to convey.

I tried to explain the philosophy of the ideal situations of two different systems here. Another thing I wanted to convey to you was that the communist ideal is not an absolute correct ideal and that it should be philosophically debated. Since Marx reduced society to a master-slave dynamic, we began to see the whole world from this perspective, and on both sides, the discussion environment became motivated by romance/hatred rather than rationality. A person was automatically considered “selfish” because they were bourgeois, and similarly, everything started to be referred to as “ideologies/thoughts that the bourgeois use to lull the working class.” The same situation exists for workers. I tried to explain what happiness is based on needs and that wealth is not directly connected to happiness and does not guarantee it. In fact, Marx’s saying “to each according to his needs” is not entirely wrong.

Applying dialectical materialism to our current material conditions implies that we do not transition to socialism, and then communism. Rather, we transition to platform capitalism.

In our current material conditions, AI, automation, and digital platforms are displacing labor while creating huge productivity improvements.

Furthermore, the rapidity of capital movement in our electronic age has resulted in a global economy where nation-states have limited control of capital flows. Furthermore, financial markets are increasingly powerful and divorced from traditionally productive economic industries.

In addition, climate change and resource depletion introduce new contradictions that Marx did not predict.

Now, a contradiction of capitalism is automation vs. labor. As automation reduces the need for labor, the contradiction shifts from between labor and capital to ownership of productive assets (AI, robots) rather than labor exploitation.

The concentration of wealth in the hands of productive asset owners further increases inequality, driving innovations in welfare programs and wealth transfers, such as universal basic income.

While the environmental pressure from the contradiction of economic growth and finite resources drives sustainable alternatives.

The dialectic resolution is not a class revolution, leading to socialism, then communism. Rather, it is a transition to a platform capitalist society. There, decentralized technologies, like cryptocurrency, enable decentralized ownership and governance of digital assets without nation-state control, as mega corporations grow into the dominant social infrastructure, replacing nation-states and providing welfare services, infrastructure, and social welfare.

In the dialectic resolution, control of data, not labor, becomes the axis of power, with individuals making data contributions, not labor contributions.

Environmental markets, such as carbon trading, address environmental concerns.

As such, we enter a new age, platform capitalism. Not socialism. Not communism.

Thoughts?

This were this years survey results

And it shows a roughly 60 40 split favoring socialists.

Now this is not a whole view of the sub the sample size is small with only 39 respondents so not really a very reliable way of viewing the whole sub. But if we were to give it the benefit if the doubt no this sub is not a socialist circlejerk with plenty of capitalists in it.

Now for the top posts and comments Iam gonna give my two cents.

I think we can all agree we generally upvote what we agree with and downvote what we disagree with (most of the time there are times were your rivals arguments are coherent enough warranting an upvote regardless of which side he/she is on). Now if we give the survey the benefit of the doubt and use a 3 to 2 deficit favoring socialists I think its pretty obvious that pro socialists posts and comments are more likely (not everytime) to be the top.

(We will be using an auto 1 upvote since when you post or comment you already automatically upvote it)

If we use the surveys respondents of 39 that's 16 caps and 23 socs if we do some math a pro cap post or comment will have:

1 auto upvote + 16 up - 23 down = -6

So that's a negative 6 score

If we use the current active members as Iam writing this that's 78 meaning 31 caps and 47 socs so we get:

1 auto upvote + 31 up - 47 down = -15

If we do for a pro socialist post or comment we get

1+23-16 = +8

1+47-31 = +17

Respectively. So yeah I kinda agree that top posts and comments tend (not always) to skew to pro socialism due to the upvote downvote ratio. But that can just be that the caps here are libertarians and ancaps and so a majority of pro cap stuff here is absolute shit. But I digress

So the thing is so what so fucking what are you so fragile that internet points are enough to make you cry the socialists have taken over the socialism capitalism ➡️"DEBATE"⬅️ sub huhu. How about actually being decent in debates and having nice arguments in good faith huh?

The black book of Communism says 100 mil dead no food it doesn't work greed is human nature vuvuzeula no iPhone socialists are so dumb fr etc. Maybe have some self reflection.

So yeah until we see a 90 to 10 split favoring one side at the very least this sub Is not a socialist/capitalist convention. Kudos to the 1 or 2 cappies that defended this sub on that brain dead post O7 you gave me a little faith to your side. But the socialists are right cry me river its a debate sub your views are gonna get challenged your probably gonna get disproportionately downvoted if you're a pro cap but suck it up its just internet points and let your arguments do the talking.

(I just wanna point out again that the survey has a low sample so the split maybe more even or uneven to iether side.) And (the upvote downvote math that's dependent on it might not be wholly accurate) I just used what we have

Anyways that's all thanks

Edit: some grammar and spelling stuff

Femboy capitalism is not just an economic philosophy; it is the glorious fusion of elegance, efficiency, and unapologetic self-expression. It is a system where thigh-highs and balance sheets coexist in perfect harmony, where eyeliner is as sharp as our profit margins, and where the only thing softer than our skirts is our ability to dominate the marketplace with style.

In the world of femboy capitalism, we reject the dull monotony of outdated corporate culture. Gray suits and power ties? Obsolete. In their place, we bring skirts that flare like trumpets announcing revolution, stockings that whisper secrets of economic dominance, and boots that echo power in every boardroom.

The Tenets of Femboy Capitalism

1.	Dress for Success, Redefine the Standard:

Why should ambition look boring? Our attire is not just fashion; it is a declaration of identity. We walk into every negotiation wearing thigh-highs that scream confidence and mascara that disarms even the shrewdest competitor. Femboy capitalism knows that looking good is step one to winning big.

2.	The Grind, But Make It Cute:

Femboy capitalists hustle hard, but we do it with grace. We wield laptops like swords, type with nails painted in the colors of success, and sip iced coffee as if it’s the elixir of life. The 9-to-5 grind becomes a runway when you’re living your truth.

3.	Luxury With a Purpose:

In the femboy capitalist economy, every dollar is a tool, every investment an act of self-love. We don’t just make money; we turn it into art. High-quality skirts, custom tailoring, premium makeup palettes—we invest in ourselves because we are the most valuable asset.

4.	The Soft Power of Silk:

Femboy capitalism knows that power is not always loud. Sometimes, it’s the quiet confidence of a well-fitted outfit or the unspoken elegance of soft-spoken determination. We charm markets, disarm competitors, and win loyalty with the poise of silk wrapped in steel.

The Femboy Marketplace

The femboy capitalist marketplace is a wonder to behold. It’s a bustling utopia of creators, innovators, and entrepreneurs—all driven by the same ethos: work hard, look good doing it, and lift others as you climb.

Stockings and skirts are sold alongside stock portfolios. Eyeliner tutorials share space with investment strategies. It’s an economy of both beauty and brains, where aesthetic excellence and intellectual rigor are the ultimate currency.

The Future Is Femboy

Femboy capitalism is not a phase; it is the next stage of human evolution. It is a system that proves you can be soft and strong, fashionable and fierce, glamorous and grounded. It is the dawn of a world where the markets bow not to brute force, but to beauty, wit, and unrelenting self-belief.

We are femboys. We are capitalists. And we are unstoppable.

The future wears thigh-highs.

Generally, people who support left-wing are well-educated high-income inteligencia, or the working class who are mostly there for wealth redistribution and union stuff right.

Often the working class is uneducated and socially conservative, but still supports left-wing policies, and many "Socialist" states are socially conservative and still implement wealth redistribution. And by socialism, they can be both workers owning the means of production, or just more government intervention and more wealth redistribution, since these two don't directly oppose the conservative social ideologies, even though they often were pretty socially progressive.

Do you think it is acceptable to ally yourself with people who are absolutely conservative socially, (anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, anti-trans rights, anti-immigration), but are economically progressive (wealth redistribution, more union, and more nationalization)?

Do you think these people are worse, or better than progressive liberals who are socially progressive but economically more conservative?

General question for democracy lovers. What are the things that SHOULD NOT be democratically controlled? The group voting may not be the same, as I'll explain bellow.

Going for the two extremes, I'm sure everyone here agrees that your day to day meals shouldn't be democratically decided by anyone except you, be it literally everyone (which wouldn't even be reasonable), be it the workers that cultivated, made, prepared and cooked your meal (which one could argue for), or a democratically elected government official (which historically happened).

In the other hand, non anarchists/Ancaps here will all agree that roads should be democratically controlled, be it any group like the government, maybe the locals, maybe a group of people that actually use it, maybe the workers that build it, whatever...

The point of my post is about what you wouldn't allow to be democratically controlled regardless of the group voting. I want to know the limits of democracy.

Here is a list for yall to think about:

• Your personal life.
• Your food.
• Your offspring (how many kids).
• Your income.
• Your work.
• Your local business.
• Your home.
• Your and your kid's education.
• Your spending.
• Goods that still yours but you don't often use.
• The bakery and the market you buy from.
• The local mechanic you took your car to fix.
• The local park that you visit often and always use.
• The local school.
• The local hospital.
• The local Gym.
• The internet.
• Tv shows.
• Social media.
• Movie theaters.
• Music shows.

What would you NOT allow to be democratically controlled and why?

When considering capitalism, I always think of it as more of an economic philosophy as opposed to a moral philosophy, yet when I think of socialism, I think of it as a moral philosophy first and economic philosophy second. This has left me wondering if a lot of the discord among socialists vs capitalists simply stems from both sides trying to give an answer to different questions. So I guess the question for which I am seeking an answer is: "Of those of you who consider themselves to be more socialist than capitalist, do you think that your support of socialism is based more on moral or economic grounds?"

I would presonally consider myself more of a capitalist, and can honestly say that should socialism be administered efficiently, I believe it would be more efficient than than capitalism. The problem is always administering it efficiently. I do believe there is a future where it could be administered efficiently enough to be more efficient than capitalism, especially by leveraging technology, but that currently we are not there yet.

On the moral side, the main issue I have with socialism is the choice to participate. I do think that my opinion may be more extreme than the average person, so those of you who disagree with me, I am not certainly not offended if you feel otherwise. I do not think it is morally right for a government to impose a socialist regime on all of it's people though, and therefore the only way for socialism to be morally viable for me would be for it to be opted into by ALL people. Given MY moral beliefs (and I am going to go ahead and assume that most of you don't feel the same), I don't see socialism as being feasible on the scale of a nation, though it certainly is on a smaller scale.