*Checks Notes* Yup
By - GhostToFigure
Fun fact: [The game Monopoly was intended to be a criticism of capitalism](https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20170728-monopoly-was-invented-to-demonstrate-the-evils-of-capitalism) \- showing that unchecked capitalism will leave one person with all the money and everyone else bankrupt.
I think people don't really get the lesson of Monopoly because once someone bogarts all the resources, the game is over.
Imagine having to play Monopoly perpetually even after one of the players has already acquired everything.
have 1 person start off with pre-established wealth (already owning hotels and streets) and see how long the other people will want to play before changing the rules
Ah yes. When you play monopoly on hard mode with someone getting to be inherited wealth. Roll to see who it is. Double their starting money, and give them 3 random properties.
Double their money? Give them half the bank, they've obviously "earned" it!
One player is too big to fail. Their expenses are covered by the bank while they also receive subsidies paid from the expenses borne by other players.
Some rules for the Player:
Get out of jail immediately -$20 (Dad bails you out)
Someone else rolls dice +$5 (Dad owns the cabs)
Someone else buys property +$10 (Guess who owns the bank?)
Reroll the dice -$5 (Continue forwards Jenkins, I don't like the smell here)
Move to any space -$200 (Private Helicopter)
but it’s okay for other players because every 1000th roll you can win the lottery!
*Terms and Conditions Apply*
40% of the winnings go back to the bank upon claiming your ticket.
No, every 1000 rolls, you have a chance to win the lottery.
Also they don't have to pay anything on the tax spaces
Just make the bank an actual player.
We did this. It went badly.
Actually, one of the players IS the bank, and all the money you start with pays 20% interest on the original loan each time you go around the board. This should speed up the game and make it more fun to play.
BOOT STRAPS MOTHA FUKAS
Might be interesting to play a series of legacy games, adding a few extra steps in between games. The Will, where the winner describes how they want their estate split during the next game. The Inheritance, where everyone bickers and trades things between games and basically decides whether or not to respect the will. And something at the start of each new game, where anyone with inheritance has to roll to see if they get to keep it or if it defaults back to the bank. Any property belonging to someone who isn't playing this time also defaults back to the bank.
Then start the game as normal. Hand out the normal amount of money to everyone (including the ones with an inheritance), and wish them luck.
I enjoy social bickering games, like Werewolf / Mafia.
And when you suggest changing games your car blows up.
I'm usually the wheel barrow.
lowest roll gets the lowest value property and no money. Debt is allowed.
It doesn't seem like THAT much either.
Realism mode would be where you give them 1601511x the money (roughly the difference between the US median wealth and the wealth of Bezos) and all property except for the first 4 and those are only available to be rented for 5 turns at a time unless you're the inheritor.
Heck, play Monopoly where the Bank is an active player.
There's always a xkcd about it: https://xkcd.com/2468/
As funny as this all is, no one seems to remember what happens next. Historically speaking when the wealth ends up in the hands of a tiny few a revolt/revolution/coup is next.
Not this time, though. The ultra-wealthy finally realized that all they have to do is convince half of the poor that the other half is the real problem and they'll just fight each other perpetually. We're never going to have another revolution in this country.
You need to learn up on your history my friend. Trust me the typical divide conquer tactics beings used today were used centuries ago to try to prevent social reform. What usually happens if reform isn't successful through legal means, is things eventually get REALLY BAD and each side becomes more and more radical until things spiral out of control, often resulting in civil war.
\>Looks out window
Yep. None of this is new. Even if the "good guys" rise up and overthrow the "bad guys" in power, there's no guarantee that the end result will be good and many people die in the process. I advocate for peaceful change now while we still have the opportunity, and if the people of the US can't wrap their heads around common sense ideas about making the country better through education and freeing up people to change jobs with healthcare for everyone, and income disparty, etc, then when it all starts pancaking down like the WTC, I won't be stay here to "do my part". If the people, as a group who actually represent the country, are too ignorant to save themselves from the horrors of violent revolution, I don't see anything worth defending.
My FiL used to worry about the coming race war. Now he blathers about the coming civil war against the leftists. I really want to tell him that, if there is a civil war, my family, including his daughter, won't be on the same side as him.
Yet the sum total of all of history's revolutions have done exactly nothing to halt their continued accumulation of massive wealth and power. At this point, why would they care about another?
again, someone who isnt well versed in history. The wealth accumulated today is *nothing* compared to the comparative wealth that royalty had during the middle ages.
(land)Lords were literally miniature states with standing armies, even bezos doesnt have “ill build a comparable army to france” money.
Trump was born with hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place yet his casinos still went bankrupt.
Casinos can go bankrupt when they are fronts for laundering Russian Mob money.
Because he's Stoopid.
Trump plays with 6 dice and still loses.
How to become a millionaire: Start off inheriting billions and follow up with many bad decisions.
They did a study on this! Gave a player double the resources of the others and, after they won, asked them why they thought they won. They all said that they'd played better, had better strategy, etc. No one said that it was because they started with a huge advantage.
It seems like at least one of them would surely realize: “I started with more stuff.” Actual zero people realizing that seems far-fetched.
There were social experiments conducted at UC Berkeley with a rigged game of Monopoly. A randomly chosen player was given advantages (twice the starting money, more dice, and a higher bonus for passing 'Go'). After 15 minutes of play the researchers noticed that the advantaged players exhibited behavioral changes. One advantaged player even explained what he had done strategically to succeed and win after the game was over.
Not many people know that the inventor of the game that inspired Monopoly (The Landlord's Game was its name, created by Lizzie Magie) [made two ways of playing it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Landlord%27s_Game)...
> The anti-monopolist rules reward all during wealth creation while the monopolist rules had the goal of forming monopolies and forcing opponents out of the game.
Robert Baron had Parker Brothers design its own version, Fortune, before negotiation to purchase her patents in case the discussion fell apart or she sold to another potential buyer. They got the rights for $500 and made the game a monopolists-only version.
Just as with real life, people don't even know there's another way they could be playing the game with the pieces that the world has given (because they're only told one set of rules - which many don't follow 100% anyway).
The second way of playing it is still capitalist but with a Land Value Tax, which many economists think is the best, most efficient kind of tax: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
> Land value tax has been referred to as "the perfect tax" and the economic efficiency of a land value tax has been known since the eighteenth century. Many economists since Adam Smith and David Ricardo have advocated this tax, . . .
Ok so the literal father of capitalism advocated for this tax what the fuck.
>They got the rights for $500 and made the game a monopolists-only version.
"And the robber barons lived happily ever after -- the end."
What a beautiful and heartwarming story, for about two dozen people on the planet.
I hate monopoly.
Heres a twist, pick someone at random at the beginning of the game to start with double the money and let the rest feel the pain of watching the already wealthy succeed.
This study shows that rigged game winners still talk about thier strategy and not the advantage they had at the start of the game.
I would be willing to make a stretch from this study to possibly evidencing why white people sometimes struggle accepting white privilege.
>Imagine having to play Monopoly perpetually even after one of the players has already acquired everything.
My best friend and I used to play Monopoly a lot as kids and his favorite strategy was to always buy one property from every block and stalemate the game unless you traded and gave him the better monopoly. He'd always either win or we'd play until I walked away (in which case he also declared victory). It was infuriatingly effective.
Buy all of the houses and never turn them into hotels. Once the houses are gone noone else will be able to raise their rent
I've heard this strategy but games never last long enough to build the 30 houses or so that's in the bag. You can win the game with like 3 houses on 3 properties, you just get them first and start draining people of cash early so they can't build their own.
My strategy is to trade my valuable properties for less valuable ones + cash, so your set is on the side of the board where houses are cheap and you have cash to build right that second. The person you traded with gets a set on the expensive side of the board and is cash strapped, so they can't build anything, and they never will because suddenly your houses are sapping them. I can usually win a game in about 30 minutes often being the only one with any houses on the board. Usually the game isn't over in 30 minutes, but it will be a forgone conclusion.
My preferred strat is to go for the monopolies between jail and free parking, because jail is the single most landed square due to people getting sent to jail from cards, speeding or go to jail square. Then when they get out, all my properties are waiting for them!
Abolish single family zoning
I never lost a game growing up. Not once. No clue why, I just bought everything I landed on every chance I could.
You are describing the US economy. I don't have to imagine, I live here. That GO money doesn't make ends meet at all.
You survived a pandemic, collect $1200
**Monopoly: Pandemic Edition**
*Congratulations! You’re an essential worker! Collect $200.*
*You lost your job due to Covid. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.*
*You caught Covid! Pay $2000 in medical expenses.*
Chance card: your brother is an anti-vaxer. Pay $200 in psychiatry bills
More like $20,000 in monopoly money for the medical.
“But my monthly bills are $1300 and I wasn’t able to work during the lockdowns!”
“Suck it up buttercup and pull yourself up by your bootstraps like the good mindless, working class peon we believe you to be, here’s your $1200.”
You survived a pandemic SO FAR.
That game was started a long time ago and there is no need for imagination.
I do. It's called being Born a human in western society. Ive been playing it since the late 80's
Homie that’s just called normal life here in the USA.
A few people already own all the shit.
Even more so when I was a kid and my parents would let me roll again when I landed on income tax so I could avoid it.
See? Cronyism works.
You must have been from a wealthy family. “No Shellwe, we don’t pay that. That’s just for the poor and middle class people. Go ahead and just roll again sweetie.”
As I think about it more maybe they were teaching me the opposite. When I started out with $1500 they gave me a pass but when I was starting to get some properties under my belt they gave me no mercy...
When Teddy Roosevelt and JP Morgan started butting heads over Morgan's growing railroad monopolies, they both agreed that capitalism inevitably leads to monopoly and the death of competition, and the whole affair ended with a collective shrug and a "Eh, what can you do?"
Didn't Teddy Roosevelt bust monopolies?
Yes the Sherman Act was Anti Trust legislation that the Teddy Roosevelt administration used extensively.
We need more Roosevelts
Both Roosevelt’s were top 5 Presidents.
Ditto. At the top of the Bull Moose party platform positions was rooting out corruption and drastically reducing the lobbying power of rich individuals or large corporations. A lot of his goals have already been enacted in some form (civil rights, wage fairness) but the corruption and lobby control show that he was a different breed especially for his time.
Well preferably without all the racist sentiment but I suppose one would hope that was more a product of the times
Maybe with less genocidal tendencies please?
Also maybe the political purges of left wingers aren't needed. The man exiled thousands of left wingers. He basically started the red scare.
Yes he did
Yes, he and Taft were especially well known for that. However, he did have one incident where he protected a monopoly, either because he was tricked, or corrupted.
That's what made the whole affair so odd.
"I'll bust your monopoly!"
"Explain to me how good business practices won't inevitably lead to monopoly."
Fortunately, JP Morgan was kind of shit at running railroad cartels and the whole thing collapsed on its own.
Along these lines, a few years back, I think someone proved mathematically that every system can be gamed. (Point being that the meta will always eventually subvert the intent. You see this with regulatory capture, political triangulation/two-party political systems, etc.)
I’d like to read that paper if you can find it
Then the next question, which provides the most harm when gamed? And which provides the most harm without being gamed?
> "Eh, what can you do?"
Like, what are they going to do though? Stop being rich??
Right-wing people hate people for reasons that people can't change -- skin color, country of origin, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
Left-wing people hate people for a simple thing that can be changed -- wealth and resources hordeing.
You can stop being rich, but you can't stop being black, trans, gay or woman.
I hate right wingers for being racist, stupid, and against the democratic principles of America. Does that mean I’m not left-wing?
Nah, those are all technically things that people can change.
They can theoretically learn the error of their ways and improve, it's just unlikely.
If we wanted to make it more realistic, the person who won last time would get to keep all the property and pay an inheritance tax on it. Everyone else would start from scratch, in debt, because they'd gone bankrupt.
A big reason why people dont get that is house rules. Play the board game Monopoly as written and it's brutal.
All my friends want free parking. I want the game to end in an hour. We don't play monopoly. It's not meant to be a 4 hour game.
The very original version of Monopoly also had rules for cooperative play so players could see how much better they all thrived if they played together. But no one liked playing that way, people preferred the competitive version with one person becoming rich and everyone else going broke.
When I was a kid, me and my brother would play with our friends. We would always refuse to take rent from each other, loan each other money, etc. Not sure if it was against the rules, but it always worked
I firmly believe that socialism is an evolution on capitalism. But it's sort of difficult to communicate that point to others.
Not trying to ‘Gotcha ya commie!’ but I’m pretty sure that’s one of the things Marx wrote about. Capitalism is unsustainable and eventually the majority of people get tired of enriching an entitled few and take back the wealth/means of production/etc.
It's not that it's just unsustainable because people get upset. It's *physically* impossible for capitalism to be sustainable in a finite system, which is what we're in.
There's no such thing as infinite growth, there's no such thing as infinite resources, we do not have infinite time.
"Ok maybe capitalism isn't *infinitely* sustainable but it can go for a really really long time right? Practically infinite?"
Nope. At the rate we're going collapse will occur within the next hundred years. The planet cannot support growth at the rate we're currently growing, it's decline has already begun. The only way for us to continue existing is to move away from capitalism and to a non-perpetual growth based economy, a self sustaining but not expanding economy, a renewable economy. Capitalists consider this "stagnation" but that's only the case in a profit based system that demands inflation.
Capitalism has only taken 100 years to bring the planet to the brink of total death.
I'm gonna interject before someone comes in saying "socialism means X, so you're wrong". It might be a good idea to define what you mean by socialism to avoid confusion.
So weird how pissed people get when you explain "Free Parking" is just a free spot. You don't collect and reward tax money. It doesn't go in a pot in the middle to be rewarded later - it just evaporates.
I've yet to meet a single person who plays by the OG rules and enjoys the game.
ME!!!!! And auction properties when you don't buy. All money is visible. This lets you buy late properties really cheap.
I will say though through the years and special editions, some in the rules use free parking as a money pit, but those games always have a timer set to determine the end of game. Then everyone tallies up the total of all assets. In that case I'm cool with all the bonus rules because we KNOW the game has an ending.
I never knew the auctioning off was a thing until I was in my 20's and downloaded an NES emulator and Monopoly ROM. Everything was auctioned off and I was like, "wut"
Now I know.
The story is so much worse, and in itself is a critique on the problems of capitalism and copywrote bullshit. It was called The Landlord Game and Hasbro stole it from Elizabeth Magie.
For those interested, I recomend The Dollup.
Its quite well researched, this isn't one of those BS wiki history podcasts.
I think its funny how many people in this country describe themselves as socialists but what they want is so much less radical than socialism
Because in America, anything other than completely unchecked capitalism is socialist.
There are people arguing for removing minimum wage, pushing for the idea of child labor as "developing a work ethic", and glorifying taking no holidays or breaks.
Edit: Socialism for the upperclass, capitalism for the rest. Bank bailouts, steel and auto bail outs, etc.
The glorifying of never taking time off is really unsettling. I encourage all my employees to use every hour of PTO the company gives them every year. Do not carry any over because you never know when it can just be taken away. You basically have no legal rights to your PTO. This one woman that worked for me had been at the company for nearly 20 years. She took maybe 1-2 days off a year and carried everything over. She expected that when she retired she would be able to cash in her unused PTO. Basically treating it like a retirement "bonus." This company gave a lot of PTO, equivalent to 6 weeks a year if you'd been there 10+ years. She had about 3500 hours of carried over PTO.
The company then decided to change their PTO policy where you could only carry over 100 hours total. You had until the end of the year to use them and anything unused would be paid out as $20 *per day*. So instead of getting value out of the PTO or the value of her wage ($30/hr) she got $20 per 7 hours (our work day). So instead of $100k for her PTO, she got $10k.
Time to take a year off and work on some fun shit.
oh yeah i know, its actually very depressing how FUBAR our politics are, but that still doesnt make those things socialism
just because brown is closer to red than blue is doesn't make red and brown the same thing if everything around those colors is blue.
Brown can’t get a word in without blue inciting fear and outrage over how similar to red those brown things are. In reality, a lot of blue things would be closer to brown if it wasn’t for the fear of becoming red.
So you could call it a red scare?
No I know what you mean, I just read that and that is what popped into my mind.
Most American "Socialists" either want a social democracy or alot more social services/safteynets and even those things are light years away from both Socialism and whatever the fuck the right wing is currently.
Talking to conservatives i've found that you're being called a comunist and/or a socialist when proposing anything that limits the free market or helps the underserved. Maybe that's why people think they are socialists.
What kind of work ethic do Americans actually have?
Live to work, instead of work to live. Work when you're sick. Getting fired when your employer wants it. Etc.
And the government can't protect employees from it, because that's evil.
I know a lot of you don't think like that, but damn...
>Because in America, anything other than completely unchecked capitalism is socialist.
They will claim, wrongly, that the government giving money to people is *Socialism,* unless the person getting the free government money is already wealthy.
There are essentially 3 different extant definitions of socialism and capitalism.
Ask a Marxist and they'll tell you socialism is public ownership of the means of production and capitalism is private ownership of the means of production.
Ask a conservative and they'll tell you socialism is when the government runs everything and capitalism is freedom.
Ask a modern self-avowed "socialist" and they'll tell you socialism is when the government uses tax dollars for social programs and capitalism is an unregulated market economy.
The problem is no one's operating from the same definitions so everyone talks past one another.
Yup, its a language problem, and until we get over that first hurdle, we’re never going to see progress.
Democratic Socialism DESPERATELY needs a rebranding effort if we’re going to get more people onboard the idea. Until then its like asking die hard Coca Cola fans to give ‘shit-flavored musky cola-lite’ a try. Yeah, its called Pepsi, but that’s not what they hear when you say Pepsi.
Even this comment conflates terms lol. I'm not saying that to be argumentative, I'm trying to point to how subtle and pervasive this problem is (traditionally, "democratic socialism" would be Marxist socialism under a democratic framework).
Claiming the label "socialist" is probably one of the most counter-productive things I've seen ever come out of the left. It alienates conservatives, moderates, and actual Marxists. If they re-branded "socialism"/social democracy to something like "organized capitalism", I bet they wouldn't have half as much trouble with messaging as they currently do.
Anything to the left of hunting the homeless for sport is socialist.
What they want is right inside of the Constitution.
**Article 1 Section 8:**
> The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States
**The 16th Amendment:**
> The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Universal healthcare and advanced education fall right into the category of "general welfare" and there is an Amendment that clearly lays out that taxes can be levied at different increments based on income. And look at that, more proof that Conservatives hate the Constitution and show that they have never once read it.
It's sad because these caricatures get in the way of meaningful discussion and pragmatic change.
Edit: I am also chastising the "eat the rich" crowd who validate the conservatives' caricature of the left.
We can't get the republicans base to support raising taxes on the rich if we have such unreasonable framing. All those types do is virtue signal to people who already mostly share the same opinion.
They describe democratic socialism, which is basically where we all as a society get together and vote on what aspects we want socialized, and it's usually pretty straight forward reasonable stuff. I like public libraries for instance. That doesn't mean I want the book publishing industry radically overhauled.
That's social democracy, not democratic socialism.
Democratic socialism advocates transitioning from capitalism to socialism through electoralism within capitalism (as opposed to revolutionary socialism).
DemSocs and SocDems might both support, for example, universal healthcare. The difference is a SocDem thinks that's more or less the sort of the thing which is the end goal, a "happy capitalism", while the DemSoc sees is as just one step on a long journey to completely restructuring society.
Thank you. In all my time on Reddit, this is the first time I’ve seen someone properly define these terms. It drives me crazy seeing people get caught up in how propaganda (from both sides) uses them.
oh yeah I know, honestly i phrased this poorly I agree with and want those same things.
Except the text book portion of publishing. Those thieves can fuck themselves.
Thats not what dem soc is. You're thinking of social democracy, which is still tied to capitalism, just with more protections and restrictions for your own population (doesnt matter if the wealth you generate is at the expense of other nations though)
Democratic socialism is widely viewed as a tactical distinction, rather than a substantive one. Democratic socialism isn't everyone voting on what we want to socialize. It's a method of achieving socialism (ie public or communal ownership of the means of production) using the infrastructure of a liberal democracy. What you're describing is a mixed economy or democratically-driven Keynesian policies, or maybe even social democracy depending on what people vote for, but not democratic socialism.
You can thank decades of post-war propaganda for that.
Say it with me folks. Social programs are not socialism. Don't let people claim that things are socialist when they aren't.
Thank God someone said it. Scroll down and you got people claiming Denmark is the next Yugoslavia or something.
Socialism became the replacement buzz word that replaced Communism which got a bad rap after McCarthyism. The GOP realizes their base has a "Fisher Price" (toddler) mentality.
I think it's hilarious that conservatives are still absolutely terrified of the communist boogeyman (socialist Satan) who's going to come in the middle of the night and steal their guns and pleasure their women.
> pleasure their women.
Someone has to, the group you're referring to certainly isn't doing it.
It’s not natural for the women to be pleasured. That’s why their vaginas are so dry. My wife’s a doctor.
Except for 1 minute every two or so years when they decide to have another baby. But the pleasure stems from the female finishing by herself after the "alpha" has dumped his holy load of procreation.
I want to frame this.
The issue in America isn’t that we have unfettered capitalism. It’s that we have unfettered capitalism for the poor and middle class and socialism for the rich. When they fuck up their business we bail them out. We give them welfare so they can pay workers peanuts.
And even when they don't fuck up, we still bail them out. The Walton family (net worth $325 BILLION) is the biggest recipient of government aid in the country because they pay starvation wages and the government has to step in with billions in food stamps. Jeff Bezo's Amazon, worth $134 billion, is the 3rd highest recipient of food stamps. Our 1% profits billions while forcing the government to pay their workers.
These are very interesting statistics. Do you have a source?
Okay this is so wild. “Over half of SNAP enrollees worked full time for 50 weeks or more in 2018”. Thank you for the source holy sheeeeet if only we had Bernie
Socialism is not welfare. Welfare is a social safety net that exists is countries with regulated capitalism. Socialism is primarily a system regarding the ownership of the “means of production” which is to say, the things people use to do work or create value. A field of crops, a body shop, a storefront, a warehouse, these things can all be considered as “means of production”. Under a socialist economic system, these things would be owned by the people who use them. Under capitalism, these things tend to be owned by someone who does not use them, opting instead to hire people to use them. The owner then pays these workers less than the value of what they produced and pockets the difference.
This “corporate welfare” is a common symptom of what is known as “late stage capitalism” sometimes called “crony capitalism”. Essentially, it is a long term effect of the upward funnel of wealth that capitalism tends to create. When someone can extract wealth passively, they are able to act upon other ventures in the meantime using that wealth. Those ventures tend to be also lucrative. The more business success a capitalist sees, the more they are able to invest, the more they can gather, and so on. It has a compounding effect. Today, multi billionaires and massive corporations have such massive amounts of wealth that they can easily influence governments to give them preferential treatment. This is a massive problem a lot of people have with capitalism. “Socialism for the rich” does not exist.
Totally agree.The truly fucked up part of that is that the poor and middle class (95% of the country) have been convinced that this is the epitome of good society and anything else (literally anything) is fucking terrible and should be met with violence.The power of propaganda is breathtaking in this country.
socialism is not "gib free money"
stop conflating corporate welfare with socialism
socialism is worker control over the means of production.
this could easily be achieved in america.
just give employees stock, make it so the largest voting block of shareholders are the employees, et voila, they control the means of production.
Mind numbing how often this needs to be corrected. Many Americans truly have no clue what isms mean
Socialists argue that this is what Capitalism will always lead to because the rich have the power to change the rules. Even if good changes are made there is always the rich class working against it that eventually will erode the rules enough to fuck everything up again.
>socialism for the rich
This statement makes no fucking sense.
Like at all. Socialism isn't fucking welfare.
And the rich (ie capitalists) do not collectively own the place that they work.
The Republican propaganda gives their ‘followers’ only buzzwords & no knowledge. Instead of showing them what SoCiAlisM is or why it’s so TeRrIbLy EvIL, they just chant it like they’re in some bizarre version of Beetlejuice.
I can’t tell you how many will tell me, quite seriously, that socialism, communism & Marxism are the exact same thing and STILL can’t define any of them beyond “bad”, “high taxes”, and hand-out”.
And the constant "Look at Venezuela, that's what socialism does!"
>The Republican propaganda gives their ‘followers’ only buzzwords & no knowledge
And it works!!!
I wonder why no one asks people... "what do YOU mean by socialism and how will it destroy the country?" I WISH interviewers had asked Trump this. I bet 95% of people will sputter because, like you said, they only know the buzzwords.
Or the “Imagine you have two cows”
Oh shit here we go again…
Look, my Dad may have given me those cows but I am very good to the people I hired at starvation wages to milk them and clean up their shit.
shit, where'd the rest of my cows go? Did you take them? Have they been bought by George Soros? WHAT KIND OF COWMUNIST PLOT IS THIS!?
...nah, I'm just kidding. I only have one cow. For now.
Ask a conservative why they hate socialism and they will describe and call it communism
Just today I saw something about a woman who was complaining about giving free meals and such to kids. "If you think about it, it's communism", she said. No, lady, whether you think about it or not, that's not communism.
And I bet she calls herself pro-life
And a Christian!
Yeah most normal people call that parenting but whatever.
I always like to respond to those blanket allegations of socialism or communism by asking if the workers have siezed the means of production from the bourgeoisie. Confused looks ensue.
Kindness is communism.
Empathy is communism.
Solidarity is communism.
They'll call it communism, but they'll be describing state capitalism.
They'll probably describe communism wrong too
I had a mouth breather the other day calling me a leftist and a fascist. Great job, bro. And of course, guess why he was calling me these things? For my wild, extremist proposal that racism does, in fact, exist.
Communism is when you have 2 cows...
Ok I bought 2 cows now, next step?
The evil satanic C O M M I E StAtE Takes one of them and gives it to your neighbor. I know because Jesus in some part of my bible says that...
I DIDN’T READ IT AND I DON’T KNOW WHAT BOOK IT’S IN BUT I KNOW IT’S THERE (angry biased gatekeeping Christian noises)
Personally, I'm gonna wait till the movie comes out.
extremists are always going to be hyperbolic and extreme
Ask anybody what sociallism *is*, you get answers as diverse as people are themselves
Not really but k.
Because socialism in most of the present forms is just a fairer version of capitalism.
The "present forms" of socialism are capitalism.
This. "Democratic socialist" countries ARE capitalist, they just have a relatively bigger public sector and stronger social safety nets. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Exactly. I want high taxes on the wealthy, smart regulation, and a strong safety net, but the unparalleled prosperity capitalism has brought about can't be denied.
There are no successful democratic socialist countries in existence today. Inb4 Norway,Sweden, no they are not democratic socialist.
And they’ll argue the pie will be bigger in capitalism. And even if your share of it is smaller, it will still be a bigger net to you than socialism with fairer shares of a smaller pie.
Pie pie pie. Lol
IMHO, aristocracy is the sign of a diseased system. Every time one develops, the society stagnates and eventually collapses.
They hoard wealth and opportunity. They hamstring progress because it threatens their power. They take over government and flout the law.
Out species has been here before, but never when the climate and the food system are under so much threat.
We've got mouse plagues in Auatralia. Fires sweeping the mountains.
And rich people sipping bubbly while it all burns.
What examples are you thinking of? It seems like the current discourse on social media has come to define anything that involves any sort of social welfare as "socialism", which is not really an accurate description of the economic system. It's more-or-less adopting the definition of "Socialism" that right-wing nutjobs have used for decades, which was essentially "anything that benefits poor people that 'conservatives' don't want to pay for".
Most countries that people point to as success stories of socialism (such as the Scandinavian countries) are very market oriented and dominated by private ownership of business (whereas Socialism is characterized by government/communal ownership of business) and probably fit more under the definition of "Welfare Capitalism".
At the end of the day "A fairer version of Capitalism" is just that, Capitalism, and is pretty much the goal of most mainstream left-of-center political parties in most Democracies.
Conservatives really won the messaging war with their "socialism is when the government does stuff" nonsense
People believe capitalism is the greatest or worst thing ever. Some believe socialism is the greatest or worst thing ever. I think it’s somewhere in between. We built this Great nation on capitalism but now I feel it’s spiraling out of control.I don’t think the solution is to totally scrap what got us here. I think there is a middle ground, adjustments we can make. Not scrap our current system entirely and restart a new or just keep going the same way we are now. Both are bad ideas
This thread is quickly turning into 500 arguments of "*Well, Actually*, Socialism is X, not Y."
In the interests of making such discussions more productive, I submit the two following links to help explain what socialism is about.
[*Why Socialism?*](https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/) by Albert Einstein (yes, Einstein was a socialist)
- this is a very short article (10-minute read) which briefly explains what socialism is and why humanity should work towards it.
[Socialism for Dummies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysZC0JOYYWw) a 49-minute youtube lecture by Marxist economist Richard Wolff, explaining what socialism is, what it is not, and why there's so much confusion about it.
The fact that they're tons of "socialists" in this thread claiming that Sweden and Denmark are socialist countries tells me that they don't know what socialism is either.
People hate socialism because the socialist societies created by Marxist revolutionaries have often been pretty brutal and unnecessarily repressive. But, that doesn't mean socialism can never work, it just means *that* kind of socialism, authoritarian socialism, doesn't work. But, I think that a different kind of socialism could work, specifically: socialism that is democratic and that doesn't arbitrarily or unnecessarily restrict individual liberties.
Every argument with a person from US:
Me: "Ok, let's have capitalism and start with that".
Him: "Sure, sounds great!".
Me: "Ok, now let's just agree on few things: nobody should starve to death, nobody should die from preventable diseases and every working person should be able to afford a basic place to live".
Him: "No that's socialism! Burger flippers should be homeless, poor people should die when they get sick and only Bill, Elon and Jeff should be able to buy a house, everyone else should either rent from them or be homeless, they can buy those trailer RV."
And somehow this is accepted in the most Christian nation in the world. What a bunch of selfish, greedy assholes!
I am a person from the US and I would not argue this way.
I do agree though, we are mostly selfish greedy assholes. Sorry everyone!
And then everybody clapped.
I don't think most people actually want socialism, though.
The Nordic model is a mixed-market *capitalist* economy. Private businesses still own the means of production and sell their products in a free market.
In socialism the goverment would own the means of production on behalf of the people.
Free healthcare, education, affordable housing, etc are not socialist. Canada, UK, Norway, Sweden, etc are not socialist.
Unregulated capitalism is bad, yes. We need to push for worker's rights, affordable pay, access to healthcare, etc but private business and profit is what drives all of our advancements.
The goal should never be to stop people from profiting off their ideas or work. The idea should be to stop them from maximizing profit at the expense of everyone else.
You can be profitable while providing a fair wage, good working conditions, and paying taxes.
If your business model can only profit by taking advantage of your employees it isn't a viable business model and shouldn't be allowed to exist.
"Socialism is bad because whenever a developing country attempts to implement socialism it gets crushed by the biggest military budget on Earth."
If someone don't know what he is saying.
"overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in favour of strengthening the monarchical rule of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi on 19 August 1953"
Your link is broken because of all the backslashes. I think you mean this
This debate has been 99% semantics for my entire life, and it's why things almost never change.
Maybe something would change if either side stopped arguing in the weeds. I'm so tired of people trying to win the dictionary fight. It doesn't do anything.