this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
907 points (94.2% liked)

Lefty Memes

4391 readers
745 users here now

An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the "ML" influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.

Serious posts, news, and discussion go in c/Socialism.

If you are new to socialism, you can ask questions and find resources over on c/Socialism101.

Please don't forget to help keep this community clean by reporting rule violations, updooting good contributions and downdooting those of low-quality!

Rules

Version without spoilers

0. Only post socialist memes


That refers to funny image macros and means that generally videos and screenshots are not allowed. Exceptions include explicitly humorous and short videos, as well as (social media) screenshots depicting a funny situation, joke, or joke picture relating to socialist movements, theory, societal issues, or political opponents. Examples would be the classic case of humorous Tumblr or Twitter posts/threads. (and no, agitprop text does not count as a meme)


1. Socialist Unity in the form of mutual respect and good faith interactions is enforced here


Try to keep an open mind, other schools of thought may offer points of view and analyses you haven't considered yet. Also: This is not a place for the Idealism vs. Materialism or rather Anarchism vs. Marxism debate(s), for that please visit c/AnarchismVsMarxism.


2. Anti-Imperialism means recognizing capitalist states like Russia and China as such


That means condemning (their) imperialism, even if it is of the "anti-USA" flavor.


3. No liberalism, (right-wing) revisionism or reactionaries.


That includes so called: Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Dengism, Market Socialism, Patriotic Socialism, National Bolshevism, Anarcho-Capitalism etc. . Anti-Socialist people and content have no place here, as well as the variety of "Marxist"-"Leninists" seen on lemmygrad and more specifically GenZedong (actual ML's are welcome as long as they agree to the rules and don't just copy paste/larp about stuff from a hundred years ago).


4. No Bigotry.


The only dangerous minority is the rich.


5. Don't demonize previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.


We must constructively learn from their mistakes, while acknowledging their achievements and recognizing when they have strayed away from socialist principles.

(if you are reading the rules to apply for modding this community, mention "Mantic Minotaur" when answering question 2)


6. Don't idolize/glorify previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.


Notable achievements in all spheres of society were made by various socialist/people's/democratic republics around the world. Mistakes, however, were made as well: bureaucratic castes of parasitic elites - as well as reactionary cults of personality - were established, many things were mismanaged and prejudice and bigotry sometimes replaced internationalism and progressiveness.



  1. Absolutely no posts or comments meant to relativize(/apologize for), advocate, promote or defend:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SkyNTP@lemmy.ml 74 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (10 children)

Genuine question. How would a transition to socialism work in practice?

Eating the billionaires and "nationalizing" publicly traded companies is the easy part. Saying "you can still possess your car" is also easy. The hard, and ultimately unpopular, part is everything else in between. Summer cottage? Family farm? What happens to pensions/retirement savings, land ownership, inheritance, small businesses, the apartment your are renting out to pay for your own rent...

Yeah, I know, these things tend to be out of reach for younger folks these days, precisely because of hyper wealth concentration. So with billionaires and mega corps out of the picture, the question still stands.

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 55 points 3 months ago

When socialists say they want to collectivize private property, they use a meaning of private property which equates to "means of production", or "capital". The goal is that there won't be owners of capital earning money simply by employing other people to work the capital and stealing a part of what they produce (surplus value).

In your example, summer cottages and family farms aren't means of production, so there's no reason to redistribute them. Pensions and retirement were guaranteed to everyone even in the USSR, where women retired at 55 and men at 60, so I can guarantee socialists want you to have a pension. Small businesses that employ other employees would have to be collectivized eventually, which could mean that the owner simply becomes one normal worker in the business, working alongside the previous employees instead of above them. Regarding the apartment, you don't need to rent out an apartment if the rent of your apartment costs 3-5% of your income (as was the case in the Soviet Union). Land ownership and inheritance are a bit grey. Obviously nobody wants to collectivize your nana's wedding dress, or your dad's funko pop collection. Obviously we would want to collectivize if you inherit a big factory, or 20 flats that your mom rented out. For things in the middle, it becomes a bit more grey, so there's no easy answer. I bet everyone would agree that uprooting people isn't generally a good thing.

[–] dharmacurious@slrpnk.net 42 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Summer cottage? Family farm?

One fairly straightforward plan is the nationalization of housing. If you own and occupy your primary residence, you may stay. If you have a secondary residence, you can keep it as a vacation home. If you own more than that, they're going to go to the state. Pick two. If you're a renter, and you occupy that place, it's now yours. Anytime someone is moving, the government has the right to first refusal, which it will always utilize. Effectively, the governments buys the house back each time, and then sells it again to someone new. If you die your home can go to a family member/designated person. No one may more than 2 homes, no one may sell a home to another individual directly, though the transfer/sale of a home to a specified individual can be arranged through the government. All rents/mortgages are income based, and payments end after 5 years.

Cuba has done this fairly successfully. Yugoslavia had a similar system. No, it's not the best system imaginable, nor is it super popular with the ~~fucking leeches~~ owner class, but it's viable, doable, and simple enough to set up while insuring that all people may be homed.

[–] lunarul@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

the government has the right to first refusal

the transfer/sale of a home to a specified individual can be arranged through the government

And time and time again this has lead to people in the government abusing this power and assuring for themselves and their families a completely different standard of living than the rest of the population. I've lived in a socialist country and the end was not pretty.

It sounds great on paper and has proven great on small scales (with the option to leave the community if you want), but on larger scales human nature always messes things up.

[–] dharmacurious@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Sure, so let's try nothing, because the current system works so well. I mean, what with us having solved homelessness, having equality, and fixing the climate, I can't imagine why we should do something different.

I understand that you've had a bad experience, and I also understand that the real world examples of nation states claiming to be socialist have been less than ideal, but, as a species, we have to decide what is more important, because we're running out of time. I'm not a Soviet fan boy or a tankie, I'm an anti authoritarian, libertarian socialist. But it's a bit like the US election right now. I don't like Kamala, but I'll take her over Trump, and continue to work outside of that to achieve my actual goals. I don't like state socialism, but it's better than what we've got. If the biggest problem with socialist states has been corruption in the upper echelons of power, then that is excellent real world data to draw from when we considering alternatives to both our current system and the experiments of the past. Strict transparency, more citizen involvement, less concentration of power. Sure, again, not my ideal system, but it's something better. We have examples to draw from, both in failures and successes. Yugoslavia had a lot more personal freedoms than the USSR, and a strong focus on worker cooperatives. Cuba has managed to create one of the best healthcare systems in the world with shoestrings and belt buckles. The USSR gives us an example of just how quickly progress can be made in areas like industrialization, crucial information that could help us in the transition to renewable energy. The US and Western Europe have created citizenry that are unwilling to accept, at least in theory, authoritarian, iron-fist control. We absolutely can create something that blends these philosophies, but it is imperative that it's focus be on the creation of an egalitarian society that works towards ending tyranny, which includes the tyranny of workers, and seeks to solve the climate crises. We do not have a choice if we want to survive the next few decades.

[–] lunarul@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Sure, so let's try nothing, because the current system works so well.

Not where I was going with it. There are definitely a lot of things that should be done, especially in the US, which I wouldn't even call socialist, just common sense (like universal healthcare). But you can't tell people "you're not all equal" and suddenly they all believe it. That's why most socialist countries were also authoritarian. Maybe over many generations of progressive change things can go differently.

[–] dharmacurious@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 months ago

Most socialist states have been authoritarian because most of them of were authoritarian before their socialist movements. They are a product of their own cultures. In addition, most are authoritarian because they're attempting to recreate the successes of the Soviet revolution, and using their system as a baseline.

Also, my first paragraph in that comment was aggressive and I apologize for that. I should have come better than that. But the fact remains, socialism is not the problem. Authoritarianism is. They're not one and the same, nor is one required for the other.

[–] Juice@midwest.social 4 points 3 months ago

Human nature? Which part of human nature? Humans are multifaceted. Also, there has never been an example of socialism in practice, even moderate social democracy that secured domestic mineral and oil resources for its own people, that hasn't come under direct attack, invasion, embargo, sanction, etc., by western capitalist powers. It usually isn't human nature messing things up, its direct capitalist imperialist intervention.

Also what model of human nature are you using? I prefer the dialectical construction of Benedict Spinoza in his book Ethics, have you ever considered what you mean by it or where you picked it up from? I see a lot of hand waving about human nature from people, but no description of what it actually is. How do you know you aren't using a flawed concept in your determination?

[–] WalnutLum@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This is also the way it works in Singapore, where you essentially lease an abode for life

[–] dharmacurious@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 months ago

Do you have personal experience with it there? If so, how do you like it?

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

The way I heard it explained that made the most sense is personal vs private property. If it's something a person uses regularly. Personal property. Otherwise public property that can be leased short term for production and business use. But never owned by a large parasitic business/corporation that will horde resources and foul the land with no concern for others.

[–] corvi@lemm.ee 22 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It works by encouraging union and co-ops, actually punishing companies that break laws, and providing social safety nets. Basically everything this comic points out.

[–] SkyNTP@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)

So by "encouraging", I take that to mean a mixed system? I'm all for the Nordic model. I think a hard-line approach is ultimately too disruptive and unpalatable to a majority of people's current personal situation, and I feel like it's important to communicate that for buy in.

[–] stormesp@lemm.ee 26 points 3 months ago

What is unpalatable to the people current personal situation tho? The problem is you are already seeing it from a capitalist point of view where you think most people have something to lose.

First, your second house or small business are not means of production.

Second, most people dont have a summer cottage, most people dont have a family farm, most people dont have land ownership, most people dont inherit shit, most people dont have apartments they are renting, most people dont have small business.

Most people have nothing to lose and everything to gain when we talk about people owning their workplace. If you think otherwise you are overstating what most people own, which is close to nothing. What most people think of is the idea that if they work hard enough they will someday have that apartment to rent, that summer house, that big money their sons will inherit, which for most of earth's population is just bullshit.

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 14 points 3 months ago

I'm all for the Nordic model

The sad thing about the Nordic model is that it relies on wealth and labour extraction from poorer countries as much as the rest of capitalist countries do. Being on the upper side of unequal exchange (I beg you to read on unequal exchange, even if only the Wikipedia article), makes it very nice for some lucky few in Europe / North America, and very hard for the rest who aren't on the upper side.

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

A mixed system which starts with changing the most socially egregious examples is probably the only politically viable transition; lots of people fear disruption, and it takes time and proving to them that the changes are beneficial.

I'd suggest beginning with something like Corbyn's Labor had proposed; if a capitalist business is sold or fails, the workers are given first right of refusal and a govt loan is given for them to purchase as a worker cooperative.

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

Give it a few generations.

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm not a socialist, but what I advocate for is explicitly postcapitalist.

Some postcapitalist policies include

- All firms are mandated to be worker coops similar to how local governments are mandated to be democratic
- Land and natural resources are collectivized with a 100% land value tax and various sorts of emission taxes etc
- Voluntary democratic collectives that manage collectivized means of production and provide start up funds to worker coops
- UBI

@leftymemes

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 19 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm not a socialist

All firms are mandated to be worker coops

Pretty sure that qualifies as socialism for most people. Welcome onboard, my friend!

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Most people think

Socialism = state central planning

@leftymemes

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Some people think so. That doesn't make it a good academic definition. You get into the shitty definition of socialism that Dr. Wolff mocks:

"When the government that's a lot of stuff, that's socialism. And the more stuff it does, the more socialist it gets. And when it does a reeeeeal whole lot of stuff, then that's communism"

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 3 months ago

The academic definition would be the systems of the historical Eastern Bloc countries or a hypothetical society that has somehow completely abolished commodity production

@leftymemes

[–] architectonas@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] jlou@mastodon.social 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Rhetorically, it doesn't matter how I define the term. It matters how people use it.

The way I would define it is either the systems of historical Eastern Bloc countries or a hypothetical society that has somehow completely abolished commodity production

@leftymemes

[–] architectonas@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

True, it does not matter for your point. I was just interested. Thanks for your answer.

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Wealth tax and taxing inheritance. You know it works because the capitalists flee the fucking country as soon as you inplement it (or rather before, when they buy information from a corrupt official or legally from a politician).

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So then how is that supposed to work? Tax something that can walk across the border tomorrow?

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The capitalists subverting liberal democracies like this is precisely one of the reasons we call them dictatorships of the bourgeoisie. Fortunately, since absolute democratic control should be held by the people, we can just seize their assets for the public through exit taxes, but they will find ways around these as well, so preferrably retroactively.

Now, this would surely tank foreign investment capital in our countries and people might say that is going to "ruin the economy". However, national control over resources is a necessary step in combatting global economic imperialism, and even though Western economies would suffer somewhat, it is precisely because they are on the top of the food chain of exploitation and frankly deserve to.

The majority of people should see a rise in material conditions and in freedom, as this makes them free to own their means of production and enjoy the fruits of their labor.

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

The small business part of the transition is "easy" (or at least, not any harder than maintaining a capitalist business), people have been and are currently doing this already. They are known as worker-owned cooperatives, and are often extremely liberating to those who make the effort. Depending on the industry (and the government you live under), it's not even that difficult, roughly on the order of forming a freelancing agency. There are also entire organizations dedicated to assisting with corporate transition to cooperative structure.

Here are some good examples of resources in the US to start learning that process:

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

Genuine question. How would a transition to socialism work in practice?

Generally, Leftists believe it can only happen via revolution. The general idea is to organize and build dual power, so that when an inevitable revolution arises, the working class is already organized and can replace the former state.

Eating the billionaires and "nationalizing" publicly traded companies is the easy part. Saying "you can still possess your car" is also easy. The hard, and ultimately unpopular, part is everything else in between. Summer cottage? Family farm? What happens to pensions/retirement savings, land ownership, inheritance, small businesses, the apartment your are renting out to pay for your own rent...

You're working off the mindset of maintaining Capitalism and piece-by-piece Socializing it, which is not what Leftists generally propose.

I suggest reading Critique of the Gotha Programme, if you're genuinely interested.

[–] rah@feddit.uk 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (27 children)

Generally, Leftists believe it can only happen via revolution.

I'm an outsider and I don't really know much about Leftist thought. I'm curious what the general belief among Lefists is for why this revolution hasn't happened? (In the capitalist West that is?)

load more comments (27 replies)
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

How would a transition to socialism work in practice?

Decade by decade, have more things be run by the government rather than for-profit enterprises.

For example, in the 2020s, the US could transition to a Swiss-style healthcare system. In that kind of system, everybody would have insurance provided by a private company, but the most basic plan would be very cheap and offered by every company, and there were subsidies available so nobody in the country was uninsured, no matter what their financial situation. The US could also have a government owned bank that operated out of every post office that provided extremely basic banking services with zero fees. Private banks would still be able to compete with that, but they'd have to compete on extra services that the government bank didn't offer.

In the 2030s you could tackle education and housing. All state-owned universities could offer education with a $0 tuition and all textbooks available digitally for free. Maybe for some majors you'd have to agree to provide some public service to offset the cost of that education. Like, a doctor might have to agree to serve for 5 years in a remote area that typically doesn't have good medical coverage. Or, a lawyer might have to spend 5 years working as a public defender. For housing, the government could buy and own housing. Any citizen could get an apartment and pay a low monthly rent directly to the government. Subsidize that rent so that if someone couldn't afford to pay any rent, they could still live there. Private homes could still exist, and would be more spacious and more luxurious, but everybody would at least be able to start with something decent.

Then you could tackle transportation. Tax private vehicles and use that to fund public transit. As transit got better, fewer and fewer people would feel the need for the luxury of their own vehicle, but those who did could continue to subsidize public transit for the rest (instead of the current situation where cities subsidize drivers).

Then you could look into food. Maybe everyone gets the equivalent of food stamps. Maybe instead of throwing money at private farmers to grow corn, making corn so cheap that it's almost free, resulting in awful things like high fructose corn syrup in everything, the government could be responsible for some basic crops, and allow private farmers to grow specialty things / luxuries.

Media would be easy -- just set up something like the BBC but for the US. Most other countries in the world have something similar.

Bit by bit, just chip away at all the for-profit things and allow the government to either take it over entirely, or to provide a bare-bones version that was available to everybody, while allowing people to keep running their own private for-profit ones that offer a more luxurious experience for people who want to pay more.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)