Because the average person doesn’t have any real time to think deeply about politics. They believe whatever big media tells them. Some also can’t understand how evil someone people can get.
“Surely the basic logic of how things work must be very consistent in order to have such a large and prosperous country like the USA. I don’t understand it. Probably because I’m missing something not because it’s fundamentally flawed”
Because the average person doesn’t have any real time to think deeply about politics.
Because the economic elites have engineered it that way.
They flooded the workplace with double the workers (both men and women), thereby depressing wages and forcing both parents to become wage earners to survive. Then, with both parents working outside the house, childcare and chores sucked up all available free time, and even more household costs went towards outside help (daycares, etc.).
Then they began a tradition of kicking children out of the house when they became adults, thereby putting strain on infrastructure and increasing the demand for housing.
Then they began a push for higher education, thereby saddling young adults with ridiculous amounts of debt at the point of their lives when they could least afford to shoulder said debt.
All this makes us extremely time poor and resource poor, such that we cannot afford the head space to consider anything beyond where we put the next step or two that we make. As a society, the common man becomes far too busy just treading water to be concerned about in which direction they should swim.
As such, most people take massive amounts of cognitive shortcuts, relying far too much on things spoon-fed to them from the very news sources that should be unbiased and impartial, but which are nearly always owned by the Parasite Class, which favour deeply regressive conservative policies that benefit only themselves at the expense of the common person.
And most people don’t think deeply not because they cannot be bothered to think for themselves, but rather because they have far too much on their plate to afford to do so. They quite literally would mentally burn out if they were to do so.
It’s impressive that someone engineered the last century of economic history. That’s some Palpatine level engineering!
Liberalism, its propaganda, and its consequences. Also a severe lack of class consciousness and knowledge of political theory.
I think more important than that, is the reason for liberalism, which is the base, ie the Mode of Production.
because the idea of being super rich is awesome and i want to be super rich. so much bills i wouldnt have a thought about 😂
Well you are not going to be super rich, and even if you were, there probably would be tons of people who have to live in hell 24/7 in order for you to be super rich.
why are so many people arguing with my comment as if im not answering the question OP asked
For every person who is “super rich”, thousands, if not millions, will go through strife and unfair hardship
Because my country, Ukraine, was under communists and it was not good time with all genocides, holodomor, repressions, red terrors and other things. Because good life under communists had only people from nomenclature. And I didn’t say nothing about censorship. Under censorship you’ll not create good music, good meals, good products, good communities. All things will be under control of old guys from communist party
Because my country, Ukraine, was under communists and it was not good time with all genocides, holodomor, repressions, red terrors and other things
Yes, but none of that is unique to communism, that’s just corrupt government. Anywhere that develops systemic inadequacies and a culture of impunity can instantly become such. That’s just something that is independent of the underlying system of economics. Like many capitalist systems like to point out that bourgeoisie who are after their own interest act as some check on the government who is usually in a power struggle for control. And that power struggle is what ensures no one side wins out.
But there’s nothing technically stopping the rich from becoming the actors of the government and when we as a society excuse profiteering in office, well then there’s no barrier from the rich just becoming the government. Which that’s just the French ancien régime that ultimately lead to the French Revolution.
So it’s NOT specific to just communism. It’s just that’s the most recent and easiest one to point out because of how blatant/brazen that system had become with it’s corruption. Even with all of the “nay-saying” that might happen with United States detractors with their usual hum of “Oh well they’re all corrupt!” Even with how passive some are with it, the corruption is nowhere near the level of being out in the open that was with the USSR. Politicians still weasel their way around because they know that there’s still some bottom level of ensuring checks on that corruption that exist. And we have those checks not because we are a capitalist society.
I think the idea that some economic system promotes some civic purity or prevents some form of government corruption is a bad linking of things that ought not be linked, because a pure capitalist society doesn’t magically inherit some barrier of corruption. That barrier has to be formed independent of the underlying economic system.
I’m not trying to detract from what happened under the USSR but that has way more to do with how power got consolidated post World War I and everything that lead to the toppling of the Russian Monarchy. The system of communism played a role in that consolidation of power, yes, but literally any tool could have been used if you have someone with the mindset of Vladimir Lenin who wanted to rapidly consolidate power during the Bolshevik revolution. I mean look at the current Myanmar Civil War and some of the ideas of General Min Aung Hlaing, no need for implementation of communist ideology there, he just wants to be in power, doesn’t believe that the current transfer of power is legitimate, and is willing to get a lot of people killed in proving that point.
I think given the current situation in the United States, the belief that you NEED communism to have totalitarianism is a dangerous linking of things that can actually happen independent of each other. You just need someone to wear down government legitimacy enough to start a civil war, that’s all you need. Everything else is just tools at your disposal to get that goal done.
So you have to understand the nuance here I’m trying level. I’m not saying it WASN’T COMMUNISM, what I’m saying is that it can be communism, but ultimately you just need someone who wants to consolidate power rapidly and exists in a society that will forgive abuses of power enough, sometimes that’s done by de-legitimizing the current system enough. That’s it, that’s all that’s required. Communism can play a role in that somewhere, but it doesn’t have to.
Not sure why you’ve got downvoted, but that’s the reason why all Baltic states had such a reaction when the invasion started.
That said, I would say that most of those states are highly socialistic despite having pretty much allergy to anything red and while preferring a capitalist system that doesn’t mean they want or support billionaires.
It could be because they arent even describing communism. These problems are easily found right now.
The problem here is that people dont even know what communism is and they end up giving these kinds of answers. Makes you think thats probably why they made a new account
Theres no genuine convo of why communism is bad.
It’s more because it’s a bunch of random assertions, falsehoods, misunderstandings, half-truths, and more with no substance to tackle and respond to without starting a lengthy struggle session.
The USSR absolutely was guided by Communist ideology, and was Socialist, that’s true. It’s also true that it wasn’t perfect. A good article to read is Why do Marxists Fail to Bring the “Worker’s Paradise?” because many people don’t understand Marxism and interpret it through an idealist, anti-Marxist lens. The article is pro-Marxist-Leninist, and anti-ultraleftist, and attempts to highlight the impossibilities of establishing an idealized form of Socialism through fiat, without strong development of the productive forces and centralization.
Explain. You cannot achieve democratic control without centralization, because you can’t have inputs with no output.
Issue of centralization is regime and politics agnostic. More centralization just results in more corruption.
I am not sure how to run the society any other way but we know that current systems are corrupted by the ruling elites at our expense.
Legal system is unwilling to deal with it because the judiciary are just regime lapdogs used against working people when they get out of line.
Issue of centralization is regime and politics agnostic. More centralization just results in more corruption.
Again, please explain. This doesn’t logically follow.
I am not sure how to run the society any other way but we know that current systems are corrupted by the ruling elites at our expense.
Capitalism is, Socialism isn’t.
Legal system is unwilling to deal with it because the judiciary are just regime lapdogs used against working people when they get out of line.
In Capitalism, yes.
Have you read Marx?
Under censorship you’ll not create . . . good meals
Are you saying that the Soviets censored recipes?
Yes. Food in the shop had a bad quality with a permanent deficit. Big amount of good food in modern country is making by a small business
This could be a language barrier thing, but it sounds like you’re talking about a production issue, not a censorship issue.
okay, despite the cultural and resource diversity, what prevented then in the Soviet Union from making normal food en masse for people like sushi or even shawarma? Why was there only sausage and chebureks, buns, vodka, beer everywhere? Because there is an order to do so and there is a chain of manufacturers, there was no initiative from below, although the country was supposed to be for the people. Due to the size of the state apparatus for serving the population, any initiative was lost. In the end, everything was done only when the old grandfather wanted to show off in front of the West :) there is nothing made of high quality in the Soviet Union, except for missiles that were sold to other countries to shoot at people :) and everything that served the military industry.
I’m going to avoid touching the rest of that and say that a centralized production not making sushi or shawarma is not the same as censoring those things. You can still make them at home, it’s not like fish, rice, and seaweed were beyond the reach of the existing production. Again, it sounds like a production issue.
and the main reason for the deficit was preparation for the war, not the desire to make people’s lives in the country better. Nothing prevented the Soviet Union with the Communists at its head from being an ally before the war with the Germans, attacking Poland together and attacking Finland, suppressing protests in Czechoslovakia and Hungary
I’m really struggling to follow some of this. Are you saying the Soviets didn’t need to fight Germany and didn’t need to take as much time as they could manage to prepare to do so?
Okay :) but everything was in deficit :) and this is not a production problem :) this is a problem of sick heads in power and a complete lack of empathy for the country’s citizens :) in relations between people, the deficit created corruption, with which Ukraine still has big problems. A habit was created to solve all cases not according to the law. People could not travel abroad without a large number of certificates and the personal permission of the local head of the party. Soviet engineers, having good talents, proposed different concepts of cars that were very modern, but the local leadership said no to any initiative from below. It was easier for them to simply copy Western equipment, or buy Western equipment and pass it off as their own, as Russia is doing now under sanctions. Now, under capitalism, you can protest and at most they will give you something like a fine for hooliganism. Under the Soviet Union and the Communists, there were no protests, or if there were, people were sent to Siberia, and their families were dismissed from their positions, and they had a label in front of state bodies that their family was unreliable. And the journalists did not say anything about it under the pressure of censorship, not even a hint. People learned all the information about the protests only after the collapse of the Soviet Union. And something similar happens in any country that wants to build communism. People become communists in their eyes, often not for the sake of making the world better, but for the sake of getting back at a system in which they are marginalized and losers
That’s how I see how Zuckerberg sends your grandfather to Siberia for lack of work and unwillingness to work, as it happened with my grandfather :) Don’t you think that you are exaggerating (so far) the level of problems in your country? All these problems of listening to you for the sake of selling goods are trifles compared to what any radical-communist-nazi who dares to power will do
Ok if we go off of that example, explain how exactly a so called communist country will exclusively force people to something against their will? What youre describing is closer to authoritarian government…
Nazis are not communist at all, they are facists. Youve been watching too much bullshit news from people who dont have a elementary clue of political science. This is why you cant even give a good clear answer as to why youre defending billionaires and surveillence capitalism.
Wow but under communists you will be killed by Irish person, not British :) and not for a reason that you are Irish, but for a reason that you are listening songs from another country or reading books, that was not accepted by censorship ;)
for a reason that you are listening songs from another country or reading books, that was not accepted by censorship
Man are you going to have a wild time reading the First Act of Supremacy of 1534 from the United Kingdom. Couple of follow up bangers from it like the Act of Supremacy in Ireland of 1560. All that happening distinctly before communism was even invented.
Typical communists still criticize me for my opinion, but give them power, they would shoot me on the spot without a trial, as in the times of the Red Terror :) in a typical communist country there can be no protests, which is confirmed by the case of China and Tiananmen Square
Echo chambers suck, I’m sorry. It’s assbackwards when people dismiss real, lived experiences that don’t align with what they optimistically imagine those experiences would be like.
Many people do not grasp the sheer size of the disparity between the truly wealthy and everyone else.
Billionaires are like everyone else. That’s the reason I don’t look up to any. They’re just as human as I am. No amount of money can ever make them anything else or anything more. They have access to an absurd degree, and they can afford far, FAR more, but they will never escape their base human nature. Almost anyone can be a billionaire. Some current billionaires prove that every moment they open their mouths.
Everyone poops.
Or they take capitalism as good and freedom as an axiom.
Most people will take “freedom” as an axiom, but how “freedom” is defined varies a lot. In a society where the commons are pretty much fully enclosed and you are homeless, the petite-bourgeois may very well be free, but you really aren’t.
I believe your comments is just a paraphrase of: “They are being stupid”
In my opinion this is a very toxic way of thinking and does not try to understand the arguments “the other side” presents.
I don’t think it’s that bad-faith. I myself still find it positively mind-blowing to comprehend when the data is right in front of me.
Someone might equate wealth to hard work, but it hasn’t really hit them, the real literal difference between 1 million dollars, and 1 billion, and then the news is talking about “trillionaires.”
There’s just no way to earn a billion dollars, to yourself, through honest work and by not exploiting others. And I think a lot of folks really don’t realize this. They know that’s a lot, but they might change their mind and realize how outrageous it is, when you present them with something like:
“Joe, you could get 3 more promotions and work 80 hours a week for 13 lifetimes and still not earn that much. Do you really think this is just petty jealousy at play?”
They might just change their mind.
But a lot of folks grew up in a time or place where people who ran the company started at the bottom, and it really needs to hit them hard that this just isn’t reality anymore.
Because communism ≠ utopia. I only hate on shitty billionaires and ones that used shady methods to amass their wealth.
Blaming individuals produced by the system and not the system itself is strange. That’s like saying the IDF isn’t the problem, the soldiers are.
That’s a fair critique. I don’t like the capitalism we currently practice. I prefer a blend of socialism and capitalism - a social democracy if you will. I don’t hate large corporations per se. I do hate those who commoditize basic necessities such as healthcare and housing. This is where i believe there should be no privatisation.
Social Democracy isn’t a blend of Capitalism and Socialism, it’s Capitalism with social safety nets.
Either way, what you describe maintains accumulation and monopolization, which results in more privitization and disparity, which we see in the Nordic Countries. There are no static systems.
So what does a blend of capitalism and socialism look like to you? I’m saying that sectors which can lead to unfair control over necessary resources should be solely controlled by the government.
And you say monopolization. Monopolization of what exactly? I don’t think you care too much for the monopolization of the gaming industry or the video streaming industry do you?
Also, you emphasize wealth concentration. What exactly do you dislike about it? Especially considering that under a social democracy wealth is only at that point luxury since there is welfare available.
So what does a blend of capitalism and socialism look like to you? I’m saying that sectors which can lead to unfair control over necessary resources should be solely controlled by the government.
There isn’t really such thing as a “blend,” systems are either controlled by the bourgeoisie or proletariat. A socialist country with a large market sector is still socialist, a Capitalist country with a large public sector is still Capitalist. I recommend reading Socialism Developed China, not Capitalism.
And you say monopolization. Monopolization of what exactly? I don’t think you care too much for the monopolization of the gaming industry or the video streaming industry do you?
Monopolization paves the way for socialization. Large, monopolist syndicates make themselves open to central planning and democratic control.
Also, you emphasize wealth concentration. What exactly do you dislike about it? Especially considering that under a social democracy wealth is only at that point luxury since there is welfare available.
Wealth concentration leads to influence, which results in further privitization and erosion of social safety nets, like we see in the declining Nordic Countries.
Interesting. I still disagree with the impossibility of “blends”, but i will take a look at that book you recommended. Thank you for the conversation.
No problem! Let me know if you have any questions.
I don’t know if billionaires are the product of capitalism per se. Billionaires are people who have found out how to exploit the current system the best. In a socialistic society there are plenty of opportunities for corruption and exploitation of the working class. The rules are just a bit different. Billionaires definitely will defend capitalism since it’s how they’re currently winning the game, but they’ll adapt as soon as they need to as well. That or the winners will be a different group of people. Either way, the most powerful will always look for ways to consolidate even more power.
I suggest you read Marx, I can make some recommendations if you like.
Can you name a billionaire who doesn’t match that description?
How about celebrities and not shitty CEOs. I’m generalizing towards multimillionaires as well as there aren’t that many billionaires. Unless the hate is specifically towards billionaires which I don’t think is the case.
However, i would put money on the off chance that there is at least one billionaire who wasn’t shady about their wealth accumulation - think Steve Jobs. Unless you consider holding companies to be shady.
How about celebrities and not shitty CEOs. I’m generalizing towards multimillionaires as well as there aren’t that many billionaires. Unless the hate is specifically towards billionaires which I don’t think is the case.
I just took what you put out there. Generally, I’m skeptical that celebrities will really withstand scrutiny, since they tend to be supported by production crew and lesser-paid artists (whether in music or movies) who get regularly screwed over. Perhaps you can make an okay argument with athletes despite them also being held up by the pipeline from the notoriously exploitative college sports industry, playing in stadiums that are mostly damaging to the city, doing merchandising produced from sweatshops, etc.
But I don’t really care about those arguments. The reason I don’t care is that the conversation is based on an obscurantist metric, that being income. Any decent anti-capitalist is not mainly concerned with how much money someone gets or has, but their relationship to the means of production. That is, they are concerned with whether this person subsists by owning or subsists by working. You displayed what I would consider a good intuition by shifting from CEOs (who generally subsist by owning) to celebrities (who at least kind of subsist by working). It seems somewhat plausible to me that there would be very wealthy athletes, say, in a socialist state, because their job requires a lot of work and, at the top levels, having the talent to accomplish what they can accomplish is rare!
However, i would put money on the off chance that there is at least one billionaire who wasn’t shady about their wealth accumulation
If a machine produces a thousand cubes but also produces at least one octahedron, what would you describe the function of the machine as being?
think Steve Jobs.
When I think of Steve Jobs, I think of someone who put a lot of money and dedication into PR.
As a starting point if you believe that, here’s an article that lightly goes over some of his controversies (ignore points 4 and 10). And here’s one that I think is somewhat more interesting that incidentally demonstrates how dependent he was on exploitation of the third world.
Unless you consider holding companies to be shady.
Owning a company is just a legal status, it’s what you do with it that matters. If what you do with it just happens to be amassing more wealth than many, many people could obtain in a lifetime of labor, you probably didn’t get there with clean hands.
I want to say that i appreciate your nuance on the subject. You have raised many good points, and i will take a lot of what you have said into consideration in my future discussions on the topic.
I also want to give kudos on your shift from focus on income to more the relationship with that income which i agree can create problems especially when it comes to power imbalances. The overfocus on the income is as you put it “obscurantist”.
If a machine produces a thousand cubes but also produces at least one octahedron, what would you describe the function of the machine as being?
You raise a very good point here as well. One which makes sense with your analogy.
I’ve also gone through the articles you posted, and there’s some pretty eye-opening stuff in there.
I guess this is in some ways an admittal of defeat. I do not know whether i completely subscribe to a “communism is the next best”. I think i still need to educate myself more on this topic.
I’m happy I could be helpful!
I guess this is in some ways an admittal of defeat
There’s no need to claim defeat or victory, we’re just talking; Success in communication is determined by the extent to which we are able to understand each other, and I think we did alright.
I think i still need to educate myself more on this topic.
I can’t claim to represent any perspective but my own, but the text that really helped me to begin to see things differently was Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. Feel free to DM me/necropost here if there’s anything I can help with.
Thanks man. I’ll be sure to hit you up if i need help with anything!
Why give the regime whores a pass? They play a role within the system to pacify the plebs. They are not by any stretch on the peasant team.
Sure some deff stood tall. Carlin is an example I can stand behind but rest of them esp modern ones are just pathetic sell out.
Seeing Jon cena and one of the clown ba players apologizing to China for $$$
Fucking disgusting
The simple fact is that capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty historically than anything else.
Is capitalism a perfect system? Of course it isn’t. But it’s the best one we’ve got.
The simple fact is that capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty historically than anything else.
This is patently false, the PRC holds that record and it was due to Socialism, not Capitalism.
Lol. Firstly, China claims they’ve eradicated absolute poverty. Do you really believe that?
Secondly, China has opened its markets to the world and allowed a ton of private ownership and private companies to take on the global markets.
The only thing that isn’t capitalist about China is the word “Communist” in the ruling party.
Lol. Firstly, China claims they’ve eradicated absolute poverty. Do you really believe that?
Yes, why do you not?
Secondly, China has opened its markets to the world and allowed a ton of private ownership and private companies to take on the global markets.
Yes. Mao misjudged the level of productive forces and tried to establish Communism through fiat. Deng opened the markets to foreign Capital, where the CPC allows businesses to grow in a controlled and careful manner before “harvesting them” into the public sector once they grow sufficiently. The majority of the economy is publicly owned, operated, and planned.
The only thing that isn’t capitalist about China is the word “Communist” in the ruling party.
This is an absurd statement that could only be made by someone unfamiliar with Marxism. The presence of markets do not mean that the system isn’t Socialist. The economy is socialized by degree, not by decree! You can’t establish Communism through fiat, which is why the CPC has been absorbing more Private corporations into the Public sector over time, and exerting more control and planning on the Private sector.
Yes, why do you not?
This is a country where COVID originated and with a population of 1.4 billion, yet apparently only 5,272 people have died. They’re not great at telling the truth and are masters at propaganda.
This is an absurd statement that could only be made by someone unfamiliar with Marxism. The presence of markets do not mean that the system isn’t Socialist.
The profits from companies are retained by the companies. Isn’t the idea of socialism that the workers own the means of production and no companies profit? The Chinese economy is set up the exact opposite.
This is a country where COVID originated and with a population of 1.4 billion, yet apparently only 5,272 people have died. They’re not great at telling the truth and are masters at propaganda.
They took much stronger stances against COVID than the US. Not sure what numbers they actually have, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they were low.
The profits from companies are retained by the companies. Isn’t the idea of socialism that the workers own the means of production and no companies profit? The Chinese economy is set up the exact opposite.
You have a fundamental misconception of what Socialism is. It isn’t an ideal to be forced on a society, but the result of markets coalescing and centralizing, to be planned. Additionally, the majority of the PRC’s economy is in the public sector. Private Property is abolished and absorbed by degree, not decree.
Read Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism. I already recommended it, and you have not read it. Read it, it only takes 20 minutes.
They weren’t “free”-market reforms. A good, 21 minute read is the article Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism. The PRC brought back markets because they tried to achieve Communism through fiat, without letting markets adequately coalesce into monopolist syndicates ripe for socialization. The Dengist Reforms brought stability to growth and prevented recession, but the bulk of the economy is publicly owned and centrally planned.
Not true. Here you go…
We’re raised by parents that must be obeyed for our own safety. Some people eventually learn to accept their parents are imperfect people and not gods. Many people do not. They look to kings and gods to protect and provide for them.
Those that have power negotiate with kings and gods. People without power attempt to use the only techniques they know to negotiate with their kings and gods: begging and/or pledging loyalty and service in exchange for scraps.
Of course this is but one of many reasons many people worship power.
what if it was me
They sold a lottery ticket to the population and made it look like 99% of you can win when the odds are rigged like a gambling machine. Everybody would defend a gambling machine as “fair and balanced” with enough indoctrination. “The American Dream” was when everybody could afford everything on minimum wage but capitalism is a short term oriented goal where for profit is the only actual mission. Tell me how many people can be sacrificed for it and I would say everybody as climate change has proven and a trillion dollar industry has shown. These climate change activists are stupid enough to think they can take down big corporations with wallets older than some of them. Never in a million years as long as capitalism exists. Imagine 112 years of sitting on their asses and not until 10-20 years ago they decided to use tweezers to put some pressure on them. Now that the whole world is about to be changed completely and irreversibly they want to stop it. It’s basically a cancerous economy that only festers at the top of the economy sucking everything around it until theirs nothing left but the cancer.
The American Dream” was when everybody could afford everything on minimum wage but capitalism
Everybody except blacks of course…
Gold age of America wasn’t golden for everybody.
And after civil rights the regime punished the whites for siding with the blacks. So now we are all field ******
Don’t even get me started. Black people or minorities and America is top 10 worst duet. Richard Nixon ruined every generation afterwards and all of this modern day shitshow started festering with a strong back. We go backwards enough and slavery was abolished but the hatred just grew stronger and had a great foundation.
I guess the central premise of capitalism is that while every society has its haves and have nots, capitalism is supposed to encourage the haves to invest in the economy rather than hoarding their wealth. In return, they stand to get even wealthier, but a stronger economy ought to generate more employment and generally improve the lives of commoners as well.
Unfortunately, in a never-ending quest to make wealth-generation more efficient and streamlined, employment is being eliminated through automation, outsourcing, etc. and the system is eating itself out from the inside. I doubt it can persist much longer, but what will replace it remains unclear. I pray that it will be something sensible that ensures everyone has their basic needs met and can still find rewarding pursuits in life. But there are so many ways it could go very wrong, and that includes staying on the current course.
I guess the central premise of capitalism is that while every society has its haves and have nots, capitalism is supposed to encourage the haves to invest in the economy rather than hoarding their wealth. In return, they stand to get even wealthier, but a stronger economy ought to generate more employment and generally improve the lives of commoners as well.
Nitpicky, but that’s the premise of Liberalism, not Capitalism. Capitalism emerged not because it was an idea, but an evolution in Mode of Production. Liberalism is the ideological justification.
Unfortunately, in a never-ending quest to make wealth-generation more efficient and streamlined, employment is being eliminated through automation, outsourcing, etc. and the system is eating itself out from the inside. I doubt it can persist much longer, but what will replace it remains unclear. I pray that it will be something sensible that ensures everyone has their basic needs met and can still find rewarding pursuits in life. But there are so many ways it could go very wrong, and that includes staying on the current course.
Have you read Marx? He makes the case that due to Capitalism’s tendency to centralize and form monopolist syndicates with internal planning, the next mode of production is Socialism, ie public ownership and planning of the syndicates formed by the market system.
This might be relevant:
https://youtu.be/J_fZ9o6P0-A?si=-fl7rLryYZBDVgTN&t=194
Conditions here were deplorable by any objective measure. And if you’ll recall, one of the hallmarks of early Russian industrialization was: the workforce was often transient. People moved back and forth between their home villages and jobs in the cities, and this flux meant that the places people lived and where they ate and bathed and got medical attention were only ever temporary expedients. It was a bit like you were going off to some particularly crappy summer camp. It was only meant to be temporarily endured, not lived in full time, and so conditions just never got better. People were not just renting rooms; they were renting corners of rooms. You could rent not just a bed, but part of a bed. Sanitation was, of course, practically non-existent, and the food was disgusting. The work itself, meanwhile, was long and grueling. There were no safety standards in the factories. There were hardly any rights for anybody at all. And pay was literally inadequate. The ministry of finance itself surveyed conditions and concluded that a family of four needed about fifty rubles a month to purchase basic necessities (that is, food and shelter and heat) and then they found that 75% of the workers were making less than 30 rubles a month. The economic and moral math was just not adding up.
https://youtu.be/J_fZ9o6P0-A?si=FtaiY47HVyXXBeAP&t=340
The lower skilled, less educated, and still mentally “peasant” workers tended to remain culturally conservative. They were orthodox christian and believed strongly in the divine benevolence of the czar. And indeed one of the things reported by both social democrats and SRs back to their respective central committees was that they struggled to recruit among these workers because they were out there pitching “overthrowing the czar” and everyone was like “What? We… we love the czar, and he loves us too!”
To them, the czar was not a villain, but a hero. Not the devil, but their savior. It understandably made recruiting for a political revolution to overthrow their “hero and savior” very difficult.
https://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/revolutions_podcast/2020/02/1033-bloody-sunday.html
Which is why the conservative mandate is to defund education and keep people as ignorant as possible.
I mean, to keep the common man as ignorant as possible – the children of the elites will always go to prohibitively expensive Montessori schools, which will better prepare them for critical thinking and bullshit detection so that they may better rule over and parasitize off the common man.
temporarily embarrassed billionaires
Richard Nixon’s head : I promise to cut taxes for the rich and use the poor as a cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel!
[audience applauds]
Philip J. Fry : That’ll show those poor!
Turanga Leela : You’re not rich!
Philip J. Fry : But someday I might be rich, and people like me better watch their step
For the same reason people idolize the King.
Brainwashed since birth. GI Joe had the American Express slogan in an episode (“never leave home without it.”). Alvin and the Chipmunks had a story about the Berlin Wall propagandizing communism. All the bad guys in Cobra have accents.
This shit is vile and it was on my morning cartoons.
