GullahGullahIslander
28116
1033
24
May 8, 2026 7:24 PM
GullahGullahIslander
28116
1033
24
NOINITIATIVE
not once have I met a wealthy person and thought of them as "hard working"
xelbi1988
Assume the worker gets the full value of their labor, how much should factory owners charge them to rent the equipment?
Kc0125
Try and explain that to the average boomer brains, they get 😡
PorterPickUp
The socialist credo is literally “From each according to ability, to each according to need.” What do you think the "from each" and "to each" portions mean?
cracklinoatbran
Whoisthisdoctorwho2000
All the aged grunter (like me) whorhought they'd grown up in capitalism still resisting the truth that we were in a protected social democracy after true capitalism broke everything
MasterBountakun
There are a LARGE amount of people in America who don't know what, socialism, communism or fascism is. They also don't like learning that the defintion is anything aside from what they thought. We breed so much anti-intellectualism and toxic individualism that now idiots are convinced they know more than any expert because admiting they were wrong would make them feel too small.
Eiladar
People were sold on the idea that Russia and China were Communist, Communism was evil, and socialism was Communism; when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics actually had as much in common with socialism as the National Socialist Party did. And god only knows what's going on in China, but it's not even _Communism_ at this point.
PorterPickUp
China is a modern fascist state. But of course that word is reserved for 'bad' countries/parties, so the media likes to call it Democratic Socialism despite it only having a single party.
QuantumInc
Disappointing how many people think this. Conservatives would talk about semi-obscure government programs like it was insanity or just a cover story to pocket tax money. I can only imagine someone who cannot fully comprehend "government" so they just imagine their taxes going to the police, the military, and a council of rich guys.
foxnfloof
And the there is The United States of America Socialism aka Grift
EllisHobbs
Jace99
As a citizen of a social democracy, I can tell you there are definitely things that piss us off about it, but we’re too comfortable to obsess over it. Plus, all we have to do is think “Hey, at least I’m not American. Those poor bastards get absolutely nothing.”
noonehasthisoneyet
If the dummies that fight it could read they might change their tunes
CrisprCAS
Lugh314159
You know at first that building looks cool, but then you realize that everyone who has a pool ALSO has a neighbor whose pool is right above their living room.
IceWeaselX
That's why you must be better than the rest and acquire the penthouse.
Max78787878
Socialism is control.
skapanda616
https://media4.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1OXJia2pkNWlkZTJteWc5djN6Y2JzMzFhbDQ2bHdocjEzMDRzaWxrdyZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/jUJpQBEHrEgddMgTZv/200w.webp
Max78787878
Great argument.
AreYouABadPerson
That's nice, disposable troll account.
Max78787878
No troll account here, and thank you for the compliment I do stand by my statement.
AreYouABadPerson
Your continued low effort trolling is noted. Now if you could crawl back under whatever dumpster you oozed out of that'd be greatly appreciated.
asperson
Unfortunately I lived under socialism, may be less aggressive as capitalism but the same potato
Sfingks
Which country? And what was bad about it?
asperson
xUSSR. All animals are equal but some are more equal. If you are not in the system too bad for you. Have to be smart and not say anything against the power. Propaganda everywhere, we are the best of the world and will liberate and bring democracy to all other nations. It's in the background. In the foreground it's deficit almost everything, bad free medicine, alcoholism, hopelessness and early death. Survive! (c)
I'm sorry, maybe socialism can be better, didn't see it
Sfingks
The economic model used by the USSR was not what we call "socialism". They did indeed use the word socialism, but it not what people mean today when they use the word. A better word for the USSR's economic model would be "state capitalism".
asperson
Ok then, I really wish you luck, just don't repeat our mistakes
cosinewave
Socialism is the word they use when they cannot profit from a policy.
Daliena06
And the worst thing is they WOULD profit from it. Not directly, but public schools = higher educated, more productive workforce = mo' profit.
But either they refuse to acknowledge that, or they just insist that there has to be a slave class because their riches mean nothing if they can't contrast it to others suffering.
meme2zombie
woozle
ask someone who hates socialism or cOmMuNiSm to define it and they will describe capitalism.
meme2zombie
MauroMolinero
Socialism is when the bank takes your home and your boss fires you because he wants another sports car. /s
woozle
socialism is when you have no money for food or gas and have to live off your credit cards.
ForceAwakenWasLame
Socialism is what gave us social security. So ya but no.
Unclescam
On the radio they were talking about some new credit card...buy now, pay maybe. Like it can randomly make a purchase free. Sure, at double normal interest rate I bet.
MauroMolinero
Socialism is when you have to sleep on the street because billionaires control all the job market and also bought all the private properties to keep them in rent and exploit the people.
RexRexroththe1st
First and foremost you are not a democracy you're a Plutocracy/Kakistocracy hybrid like Russia. So any economic system will inevitably end up where you are now. In Russia's case communism and in your case capitalism.
modus0
Right now we seem to be more of a Morocracy than anything else...
Daliena06
That is indeed a Kakistocracy. "government by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous people."
modus0
Except it's more than just the "worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous people", it's people seem to revel in being absolute idiots on top of all that.
ZackWester
... Russia/soviet never was Communism it was. an Oligarchy day one. same as the US Democratic system today. its a Oligarchy the question is what kind of gov the Oligarchy are pretending they are.
BillyBabel
Sorry but this is ignorance of history. Even Stakin would never have claimed to achieved communism, it is rather the ethos of the govt, in the same way a govt is liberal, conservative, etc a government is communist. Stalin managed to defeat 70% of the Nazis, raise literacy rates, life expectancy and have the most female doctors and scientists in the world and put the first man in space. The ussr did this with only at its best 40% of the USA’s gdp. The power of investing in ppl not profits.
nihiltres
Yep, exactly that. A "communist" revolution happened … and then the power vacuum was very quickly filled by authoritarians, who chose authoritarian rule with socialist flavour.
blaghart
Profit is, by definitiom, the theft of your labor. Profit is the amount of money workers generated in value for a product, that they weren't paid in compensation
badbuddhist
blaghart
Profit (net profit specifically) equals income minus expenses. Income is made by selling a good for a value, expenses are wages. Wages cover the labor of employees, who add value to raw materials to produce a good, which is then sold. The value of the new product is the value laborers added to the raw materials to produce that product, thus to have profit you must pay laborers less than the value you gained from their labor.
badbuddhist
Define theft, dumbfuck
blaghart
Awww did I huwt da widdle wacist's feewings? Have you tried sucking less corporate dick? Then maybe your life would suck less?
GallusTadius
Doesn't this mean that the value of all capital inputs would be zero?
TheBunnyPants
What do you mean by capital input? Capital by definition is any asset, including money, property, or intellectual property, used to produce goods, generate income, or initiate investment to create future value. It has no value at the start. Labor is what creates the value... And before you say money is value. It's not, it is an abstracted number based on its value as a trading tool. It has no value by itself
GallusTadius
So all that needs to be done to create a company that builds cars for instance, is to assemble the necessary people with the necessary skills, and without any other resources whatsoever, they can build a auto factory? I'm just trying to understand how this is supposed to work without capital.
blaghart
think Star Trek. Ships get built even though they have no currency, because society as a whole agree they want ships. You don't need capital rewards to motivate people to make or improve things. Literally every human achievement wasn't made in the name of profit, but in progress.
GallusTadius
As per my comment just a second ago, sure, works in a highly theoretical model (Star trek), but until we get there, its a non-starter. Even the most socialist countries in the world acknowledge the right to make a profit. When we eliminate money, your ideas might hold water, but until that day you aren't going to get off the ground without accepting the existence of a profit motive
GallusTadius
I mean, if money (capital) has no value, than it shouldn't be necessary to create a material good. Not sure if I understand what you are trying to say
blaghart
Negative, actually. Because there are the costs associated with the maintenance/degradation of tools. This fact is one of the big reasons capitalism, and in fact any system that concentrates wealth in the hands of an unelected minority, always tears itself apart. You literally can't have profit without stealing value from someone else, so eventually the pyramid scheme falls apart.
GallusTadius
So, what you're saying, if I parsed that comment correctly, is that capital is not just unnecessary, but detrimental to creating goods/services? That say, 100 people with zero capital can create a good/service more efficiently than the same number of people with 1 million $?
blaghart
No, what I'm saying is that you can't get capital under a system where capital defines your access to resources without stealing that capital from someone else in some manner in a pyramid scheme, essentially.
If you eliminate capital from the equation, you won't get an "efficiency" gain, at least under the definitions that stem from capital (since definitions of efficiency are influenced by how much one person can steal from others). You will, however, get a better distribution of resources.
GallusTadius
Don't think I'm buying it. You're basically saying that the existence of any capital only happens by theft. I think thats a stretch. In any case, the most socialist countries in the world acknowledge the right to make a profit. Your argument might hold water in a highly theoretical model, but not IRL. Its ivory tower logic.
pasthelod
also it ignores that workers do work but the market is for products or services. (the market for labor is what determines worker wages/salary/perks/benefits/compensation.) the obvious problem is how to price the inputs (ie. how to split the revenue). this problem exists regardless of who owns the means of production.
blaghart
Workers add value to raw materials to produce products and services. >the obvious problem< yes because capitalism inherently defines whether you deserve access to resources to live based on an arbitrary number you had no say in deciding. Case in point: Doing the same job I've been paid 17, 24, 29, and 36usd per hour. To do the same job, with the same level of skill. Because monetary value is completely made up.
captainnewbi
Profit isn't theft by definition. Profit is the difference between cost and revenue. Anyone who says profit of theft is uneducated. A more accurate representation of what people probably mean is "an unfair allocation of payment for services rendered is theft". Using the incorrect phrase is catchy but the incorrectness of it hurts is persuasiveness.
badbuddhist
Welcome to Imgur, where the most convenient definition wins
blaghart
Welcome to imgur, where you demanded citations for basic math you could easily have looked up yourself to try and pretend you're not a bad faith actor convinced that an economic system where you get no say in whether you "Deserve" access to the things you need to live is good actually
badbuddhist
Lol, you’re a stupid, desperate motherfucker. But I’m glad you exist.
blaghart
Profit (net profit specifically) equals income minus expenses. Income is made by selling a good for a value, expenses are wages. Wages cover the labor of employees, who add value to raw materials to produce a good, which is then sold. The value of the new product is the value laborers added to the raw materials to produce that product, thus to have profit you must pay laborers less than the value you gained from their labor.
profit is by definition theft of the value labor adds to a product.
captainnewbi
That is not true. You can increase the value of the product of someone's labor to gain profit or decrease the cost of the materials. For example if the materials cost $5 and labor is $5 and I sell for $10. I can increase my profit by finding someone who will sell the same materials for $4 and increase my profit by 1$ without changing the value of labor. I can also increase the efficiency of labor by providing better tools such that the laborer can produce the product faster or easier.
captainnewbi
If the labor is easier, then the value decreases because the labor cost is a function of effort. The difference is also profit.
blaghart
if you increase the value of the product of someone's labor without paying whoever increased the value of that product, you're still stealing from labor. And if you decrease the cost of materials but produce goods of the same quality, you're still stealing the value that labor added to those cheaper raw materials. Or, you're stealing value from the person who sold you the cheaper materials, because they cut into the value of their own labor in acquiring those materials to sell it to you.