• @Cleverdawny@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      632 years ago

      Comrade, we all know lead poisoning and the need for safety gear are capitalist propaganda! Now, get back in the mines! Production must increase 50% this year, and your state-appointed union representative says it can!

        • @Cleverdawny@lemm.eeOP
          link
          fedilink
          -72 years ago

          You know, it took until 2003 for Russia to remove leaded gasoline from stations. The Soviets never did it LMFAO

          but nice try

          • CyclohexaneM
            link
            fedilink
            51
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            EDIT: based on another commenter, OP’s claim isn’t even factual.

            And it took the US until 1996 (after fall of USSR)? Not to mention that it was capitalism (General Motors) that spread the hoax about leaded gasoline being safe, under the guise of scientific research in 1921.

            This is not the gotcha you think it is.

              • CyclohexaneM
                link
                fedilink
                232 years ago

                It was not uncovered until much later that this scientific research was in fact a hoax to promote General Motors’ business.

                This is very easily verified with a web search. I would be happy to guide you to specific sources and readings as well.

          • @sub_ubi@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            50
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            Did chatgpt not include this or…?

            https://bpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.gatech.edu/dist/a/1473/files/2020/09/sovenv.pdf

            Nevertheless, the Soviet Union took effective action to protect the population from lead exposure; it banned lead-based (white lead) paint and it banned the sale of leaded gasoline in some cities and regions. While leaded gasoline was introduced in the 1920s in the United States, it was not until the 1940s that leaded gasoline was introduced in the Soviet Union (5). In the 1950s, the Soviet Un- ion became the first country to restrict the sale of leaded gaso- line; in 1956, its sale was banned in Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev, Baku, Odessa, and tourist areas in the Caucasus and Crimea, as well as in at least one of the “closed cities” of the nuclear weap- ons complex (6, 7). The motivation for the bans on leaded gaso- line is not entirely clear, but factors may have included Soviet research on the effects of low-level lead exposure (8), or sup- port from Stalin himself (5). In any event, the bans on leaded gasoline in some areas prevented what could have been signifi- cant population lead exposure. In the United States and other OECD countries, leaded gasoline has been identified as one of the largest sources of lead exposure (9, 10). Lead-based paint is another potentially significant source of population lead exposure.

            Bonus: a great example of capital at work,

            Along with a number of other coun- tries, in the 1920s the Soviet Union adopted the White Lead Convention, banning the manufacture and sale of lead-based (white lead) paint (11). In the United States, however, the National Paint, Oil and Varnish Association successfully opposed the ban, and lead-based paint was not banned in the United States until 1971 (12).

            Two generations of Americans.

        • @BigNote@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          -152 years ago

          And your point is?

          Please do share an example of industrialization that somehow doesn’t include unforseen negative health effects.

          Go on now, we’ll wait.

          • @sub_ubi@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            232 years ago

            My point is that capital has successfully fought to put lead into American’s blood and lungs for over 100 years.

            • @BigNote@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              -22 years ago

              So in other words you are unwilling to answer the question.

              Got it.

              This is precisely why I say that you aren’t intellectually serious people.

              • @sub_ubi@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                2
                edit-2
                2 years ago

                You have one question in your previous comment on the very first line, and it was answered.

                Your statement on the 2nd line doesn’t really make sense, as I don’t think anyone blames people for unforseen negative health effects.

                What people are upset about are the forseen, proven, endemic negative health effects being purposefully spread for over a century.

                • @BigNote@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  12 years ago

                  What a crock of shit!

                  Why would capital willingly poison its workforce as a deliberate policy? That makes zero sense.

                  I can see capital writing it off as a necessary side-cost of doing business, but I can’t see it as a deliberate policy.

                  Again, it makes no sense. Capital wants a relatively healthy workforce, not one that’s falling apart due to lead-caused neurological decrepitude.

          • CyclohexaneM
            link
            fedilink
            272 years ago

            They are not joking. You can see them continuing here: https://lemm.ee/comment/3563759

            And this isn’t whataboutism (not that it matters). The first commenter ridiculed socialism by using a hypothetical scenario. The second commenter showed with evidence this hypothetical scenario is actually real under capitalism.

      • @Mudface@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        -102 years ago

        The Glorious Leader has declared that we have too much lead. You’re now reassigned to be in front of the firing squad.

    • volodymyr
      link
      fedilink
      -42 years ago

      The gold standard are urainum mines. Lead are for those with good behavior.

      • @Cleverdawny@lemm.eeOP
        link
        fedilink
        12 years ago

        Tbh I’d rather work in a uranium mine, it’s less toxic than lead in the quantities you’d be exposed to

        • @qarbone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -132 years ago

          If you are not dead by end of month from radiation, you will be executed for failing to mine the required quantity of uranium.

      • @OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        -12 years ago

        Remind me, what did they do to indigenous people when they were trying to get uranium for the Manhattan project?

        This nonsense is just western projection.

  • Phoenixz
    link
    fedilink
    1072 years ago

    What is it with these commie types that they believe communism will leave everyone to become hippies who can do whatever they want and all required resources just magically arrive when they need.

    It really is watching children believe in Santa Claus

    • @LoreleiSankTheShip@lemmy.ml
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1082 years ago

      If we didn’t all work to produce excess wealth for the super wealthy, we’d have 20 hour workweeks. People can do a lot with that extra time.

      • Phoenixz
        link
        fedilink
        -12 years ago

        They I have good or bad news for you, depending on your stance. We don’t. You may, depending on the company which you work for, but generally speaking most people don’t.

        Yes, yes, YES. Capitalism is evil, pitchfork and torches! Reality check: Capitalism is also the very big reason why you have a computer on your desk or in your hands in the shape of a phone to write about the evils of capitalism. Capitalism is at its core about the freedoms to share and acquire resources in the most efficient way possible. Does it have big BIG problems with runaway effects where a single person can suddenly pheewwww shoot into the sky and start resource hogging? Absolutely. Should that be legally limited and curbed? Absolutely! Is that currently done well? Absofuckinglutely not!

        But none of that means that “communism will save us”. Dear god, please please don’t be THAT naive, don’t believe in santa claus.

        If you want to spend your free time in a commune to help hippies or whatever it is that you want to do, I applaud you. Seriously, well done. But you WILL have to work for a home. You WILL have to work for food, and that computer you have in your hand to curse the evils of capitalism. And you have to work so that when we all do that, that resources get moved over the world so that the farmer gets his equipment that he needs to farm the grains that he sends to a supermarket that gets bought by a baker which you then buy in the shape of a bread loaf… We all work together.

        Again, is there a shit tonne of abuse going on? Of course. Nobody denies that. Is that abuse being curbed? Nope. Should we hang the ultra rich that have been abusing this system? Nah, lets not hang people. I’m not for violence. But should we tax them 100% of their income until their posessions are within a reasonable range? Absolutely.

        But communism is not the answer, please learn some history about the “successes” (meaning ALL failures, no exceptions) of comnunism. Read about the famines, the suppression, the torture, the corruption and the crap that comes with that to make it work. I like my freedom. I don’t need piles of cash and people generally should not be allowed to have piles. You do that with laws and taxing and enforcing. Lets focus on that instead.

        • Look, capitalism clearly does not work. Everything Marx and Lenin ever wrote about capitalism has come true. It is destroying our world more and more every day. Whatever you might say about communism, we do not know for a fact that it will ruin the lives of everybody, involved or not. No matter how bad you might claim communism is, it isn’t the thing that’s currently destroying our societies. So it is by definition better than capitalism.

    • @AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      102 years ago

      The Christ was a literal bearded, sandle wearing, hippie that told y’all to go live in communes and protect each other and The Earth, but I guess your omnipotent, omniscient God doesn’t know what he’s taking about.

      • R0cket_M00se
        link
        fedilink
        English
        122 years ago

        I love how you just assume that capitalists/socialists are all Christians lol

        The fuck do I care what a 2000 year old prophet claimed about an even older warrior god from the middle east?

        Im sure that 6000 year old ancient Jewish patriarchs definitely knew the god of the entire universe and it just happened to be the god they selected from their pantheon to be the best god. It’s almost like everyone thinks their god is the biggest god, and none of them have ever proven to exist.

      • Phoenixz
        link
        fedilink
        -42 years ago

        The Christ also is fictional, as is whatever god you’re talking about Were you talking about Apollo, perhaps? Mars? Shiva? Khaless?

        In any case, you’re talking about people living in the stone age, dying every day of horrible preventable diseases. Things that were resolved mainly through capitalism, but I guess nobody likes to think about that, can’t admit that “bad thing” can do something positive too, now can we?

      • Phoenixz
        link
        fedilink
        22 years ago

        Fuck that! Your little children and old grand parents can mine coal! You need to build our rail line!

      • @JustMy2c@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        12 years ago

        If production stays low, we WILL be forced to lower the age of workers from 9 years to 7 years. Work harder, your kids lives depend on it (if you’ve been given a permit to have kids, of course!)

    • @PrinzMegahertz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      12 years ago

      Wasn‘t Marx idea that communism can only exist once industry has been automated to such a degree that an individuals contribution is not mandatory anymore?

      We might reach that point of technological advancement. within the next 50 years with the raise of AI. What we make of it is a completely different matter…

    • @KillAllPoorPeople@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      -142 years ago

      What is it with people over on lemmy.ca with the most dense, thoughtless takes on everything? I swear I’ve never seen a comment from someone who’s on lemmy.ca that made me think, “this person’s head is screwed on properly.”

      • @BobGnarley@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        162 years ago

        Your username is “KillAllPoorPeople” and you’re talking about peoples heads not being screwed on properly. Lol, ok

      • Phoenixz
        link
        fedilink
        -42 years ago

        Meaning? You think that the world should be communist and then we’d all be happy working in our vegetable garden? I’m responding like that because I get so many facepalmingly stupid responses from people who actually really believe that with communism they would get freedom. I don’t even know how to respond to that, because its so mind bendingly stupid. They complain about all the starvations in capitalist countries.

        WHERE!?

        I can point to countless famines in communist countries with millions upon millions of deaths. But capitalism? Its currently riddled with problems, yes, we need to do better, tax the shit out of the rich until they are at normal levels… But famines? In a democratic capitalist country? Where?

        Its just mind blowing that people can be THIS dumb. Read some frigging history for your own sake.

  • @sub_ubi@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    1062 years ago

    When you own the means of production it’s literally yours. I don’t understand the issue.

    • Dale
      link
      fedilink
      English
      302 years ago

      Big difference between communism and socialism.

      • NightDice
        link
        fedilink
        402 years ago

        That’s correct, but I’m not sure what you understand those terms to mean, because neither really supports taking all ownership away from people. I’m just gonna leave this blorb here, because I feel like this is where it fits best.

        Communism in the style of Marx and Engels means that the workers own the means of production. They would have been completely in favor of a person owning their own farm (or jointly owning it if multiple people worked it). They didn’t really envision much of a state to interfere, much less own property.

        That the Soviet Union (and later the PRC, fuck them btw) claimed to be building the worker’s paradise under communism was mostly propaganda after Lenin died. There hasn’t been any state that has implemented actual communism as established by theory.

        Socialism (as I understand it, but I’m not well-read on it) means the state has social support networks, but largely works under capitalist rules, with bans of exploitative practices. There are some countries trying to implement a light version of this across Europe, to varying success (mostly failing where capitalism is left unchecked).

        The issue is that the US started propagandizing like mad during the cold war, and “communism” was just catchier to say than “supportive of a country that is really just a state-owned monopoly”. Soon everything that was critical of capitalism also became “communism”, which eventually turned into a label for everything McCarthy labelled “un-american”. This is also the time they started equating the terms communism and socialism. A significant portion of the US population hasn’t moved past that yet, because it fits well into the propaganda of the US being the best country in the world, the American Dream, all that bs. The boogeyman of “the state will take away the stuff you own” turned out pretty effective in a very materialistic society. Although I’m very glad to see more and more USAians get properly educated on the matter and standing up for their rights rather than letting themselves be exploited.

        • mycorrhiza they/them
          link
          fedilink
          -1
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Socialism means the state has social support networks, but largely works under capitalist rules

          What you’re describing is “social democracy” — capitalism with safety nets, where production is still controlled by owners rather than workers. “Socialism” explicitly implies worker control of production. “Nordic socialism” could more accurately be called “Nordic social democracy.”

          “Communism” refers to a classless, stateless society where everyone has what they need, no one is exploited or coerced, and there are no wars. It’s an aspirational vision for the future, not something you can do right after a revolution when capitalism still rules the world.

        • @icepuncher69@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          -4
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Holy shit, this is exactly how the whole big picture of comunism is.

          Not even self proclaimed communist understeand this and seems that they think communism is the same thing America propagandises against, so they end up being apologists for tyranical regimes that are the contrary of what comunism and even socialism should be, and end up making an ass of themselves and fitting more with the tankie description. And yes fuck the CPSU/КПСС and the CCP.

          You are ultra mega based.

    • Patapon Enjoyer
      link
      fedilink
      3
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      The issue of course is that when we reach peak communism we’ll drop possessive language entirely like in The Dispossessed.

      I’ll work and teach on the farm we share.

    • sharpiemarker
      link
      fedilink
      -362 years ago

      Under communism, the state owns the resources. People are not the state.

      • CyclohexaneM
        link
        fedilink
        64
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        That’s false. There’s no state in communism. See Karl Marx or any Communist writer on this.

          • CyclohexaneM
            link
            fedilink
            272 years ago

            There’s no utopian vision advocated for by Communist philosophers. They talk exactly about how this would come through. So yes, they speak about it as an achievable and feasible thing.

              • CyclohexaneM
                link
                fedilink
                72 years ago

                The idea is that these socioeconomic orders are global. Capitalism today is global. Even if a country today tries to do not-capitalism, it still must engage in the capitalist sphere, doing trade with them, using money system, debt, and producing purely for the purpose of selling. These are aspects of capitalism we stuck with until the global order isn’t capitalism.

                So communism would not come about unless it is global. In which case the question of “other countries” would not apply. You can assume that for whatever reason, a breakaway bunch decide to revert back to capitalism, but that would not go well. Why? Why would anyone whose needs are fully met and their entire time is only spent doing things for their own interests and community decide “I actually wish I had to give most my time to a capitalist in exchange for money that allows me to buy my needs”? For one, money wouldn’t exist in communism, so that part would not even appeal you. Capitalism only has the upper hand because it is already the global system. Once it is overthrown, it is the reverse.

                Obviously a society will put guards to deal with lunatics wanting to destroy society for ideological reasons (trying to restore capitalism). It would be in their interest to do so.

                I hope I answered your question. Unless your question was “how do we prevent resistance during the revolution / transition”?

          • CyclohexaneM
            link
            fedilink
            112 years ago

            There’s no utopian vision advocated for by Communist philosophers. They talk exactly about how this would come through. So yes, they speak about it as an achievable and feasible thing.

              • 小莱卡
                link
                fedilink
                6
                edit-2
                2 years ago

                What if i told you that marxist theory is not some isolated idea from a random guy but the conclusion of a scientific analysis of economic history through the lens of dialectical materialism, and built on top of the works of many other people?

                An easy way too look at it is that marxism is for economics what darwinism is for biology.

                The best read on this is “Dialectical and Historical materialism” by Stalin.

          • CyclohexaneM
            link
            fedilink
            292 years ago

            You’ve gotta try reading beyond 6th grade level fiction before judging books on socio-economics.

          • @Gracchibro1@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            82 years ago

            You are maybe confusing communism for socialism. Communism is stateless by definition. Socialism is the phase of development before communism is achieved in which the people indirectly own the means of production through the state.

      • ComradeSharkfucker
        link
        fedilink
        27
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        You’re mistaken, the state is a collection of proletariat meaning you are a part of the state. You may not be the whole state but it is your land as it is everyone elses

        Atleast as far as I understand it

        • RaivoKulli
          link
          fedilink
          -32 years ago

          I’ve heard same said about liberal democracy too. “State is made up of us voting citizens” etc etc. Feels as hollow

          • @purahna@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            8
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            The difference is that liberal democracy is underpinned on the idea that being able to elect a bourgeoise representative is all you need to be fully involved, whereas a socialist system must recognize that collective ownership of a state by the people requires the people have power over everything that happens in that state, law, economics, religion, war, everything. Socialist states exist with this as an ideal and only walk back from this goal with good cause, as opposed to starting with nothing, adding the opportunity to choose bourgeoise representation out of a small pool every once in a while, and calling it good.

            e: added text in italics for clarity

              • @purahna@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                3
                edit-2
                2 years ago

                I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at, can you elaborate? I’m not advocating making laws about what people are allowed to think, but I’m not sure that’s what you mean

                • @RedBaronHarkonnen@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -5
                  edit-2
                  2 years ago

                  socialist system must recognize that collective ownership of a state requires power over everything that happens in that state, law, economics, religion, war, everything.

                  That’s making laws about what people think. That is not socialism but tyranny.

            • stevedidWHAT
              link
              fedilink
              92 years ago

              But where can we install another electoral college to guarantee govt control over masses wants

              • @Gorilladrums@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                0
                edit-2
                2 years ago

                The US > literal any socialist state, and it’s not even close. The US is so far above any socialist state past and present that it’s comical when brain damaged Marxists try to compare the two and think it’s a gotcha for them. No, despite all its flaws, the US is objectively a great country, and that’s largely because it’s a liberal democracy. What’s funny is that it’s not even the best liberal democracy, there are others that are better. But even a mediocre liberal democracy is better than anything Marxist. Hell, even a bad liberal democracies are better than anything Marxist. I’d rather live in modern day Botswana or Peru any day of the week over modern day Cuba or any time during the Soviet Union.

  • @31337@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    642 years ago

    I mean technically, you could have a farm if you worked the entire farm by yourself (personal vs private property).

  • Link.wav [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    412 years ago

    I’ve never understood how this is supposed to be some big own to communism. You’d still refer to it as “my farm,” even as I refer to the community where I live as “my city” and the jobs I’ve worked to benefit some capitalist bozo as “my job.” This is even worse than Ben Shapiro popping out of a well. In many ways, I think I’d feel more ownership as part of a community vs. the facade of “private property.”

    • volodymyr
      link
      fedilink
      132 years ago

      This particular thing was actually tried by the Soviets. Farms were considered excesses of kulaks. Kolhos (collective “farm”) was the replacement.

      And yes, it was possible to say “my kolhoz” like people say “my city”, good point. Even if “our kolhoz” was a lot more accepted, since it emphasizes how collective it is.
      It is also possible to feel personal affinity to collectively owned space.

      The difference between usually implied individual “my farm” and collective “my farm” is of course in the governance.

      Collective ownership may end up being governed by ineffective unaccountable and irresponsible “people representatives”. E.g. deciding that genetics is a capitalist plot, and planting corn everywhere is the solution to all problems (both cases actually happened on a massive scale).

      The result is not very different from what ineffective unaccountable and irresponsible large capitalist landowners do.

      Both systems disenfranchise the disadvantaged ones, since decisions can practically never be completely unanimous.
      So it’s good if you agree with the party line, but if not - violent suppression comes, no teaching on the farm.
      That’s where the feeling of “my farm” breaks down. On a private farm you have a lot more options before you are lost.

      I get the challenges with governance in capitalism-turining-feodalism which we have now in many cases.
      But I do not get it why people imagine that full collective ownership is a good and sustainable alternative.

      • Link.wav [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        72 years ago

        None of this is a critique of ideologies like syndicalism and anarcho-communism, so it’s still a pretty ignorant meme that conflates Soviet communism with all forms of communism.

        None of this disproves what people like Peter Kropotkin and Emma Goldman were writing about, whose worldviews do not disenfranchise such groups.

        I also heartily disagree with your take about private farms. The options you think you have with “private property” are a scam.

      • mycorrhiza they/them
        link
        fedilink
        52 years ago

        Most early Bolshevik policies were more situational than ideological. The main priorities were to repel threats and industrialize as quickly as possible. They expected to be crushed by industrialized capitalist powers unless they reached parity.

        • @jackoid@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          42 years ago

          And to refute OP again, the Maoist Revolution lead to a near equal redistribution of land among the peasantry.

    • @Cleverdawny@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      -252 years ago

      Hey! Literal communist propaganda. Honestly, the better thing to do instead of this is just ask someone over 50 who lives or lived in Eastern Europe.

      • Marxism-Fennekinism
        link
        fedilink
        English
        16
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        “Did people in the USSR hate their governments?” - https://dessalines.github.io/essays/socialism_faq.html#did-the-citizens-of-the-soviet-union-dislike-their-government

        “Did the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries have functioning democracies?” - https://dessalines.github.io/essays/socialism_faq.html#did-the-soviet-union-and-the-warsaw-pact-nations-have-functioning-democracies

        It’s also interesting how people who’s 50, who would have been around 18 when the USSR collapsed or their country seceeded and would have spent their entire adulthood and potentially a part of their teenhood bearing the shockwaves rocking every part of their country under the newly established capitalism (their supposed liberation and salvation and who their new governments claimed would fix literally everything and make them not miserable anymore) that nearly destroyed plenty of Eastern European countries, are overwhelmingly against the USSR, but the trend goes to far more favorable of the USSR the older you get. I’m sure it’s just nostalgia though, the oldest people are just behind on the times and their opinions don’t count.

        Edit: I fixed a miscalculation I made regarding how old people were when the USSR collapsed. My bad.

        • @FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          72 years ago

          The USSR collapsed in 1991 so you would be 18 then if you’re 50 now. It very much depends on where in the USSR you were, the countries resisting their imperialism got the worse of it. In the baltics most older folks lost family or friends to the occupation so their views on it aren’t actually favourable, especially if they remember the time before occupation.

        • @kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          -4
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Would Chinese people tell you they hate their government? Is Chinese authoritarianism a good thing just because the people within China don’t complain?

        • @Gerula@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          -8
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Here there is a cesspit of inexperienced communists. That means you are dreaming of something written in books or explained by other dreamers but haven’t yourself experience the “superior” lifestyle of the “new man”.

          I haven’t read all the links in detail but at least the statistics concerning my country are total bullshit. They aren’t faked but the results are misrepresented in a more perverse and I dare to say “comunist way” (meaning the same practices that dominated my country and society for 45 years).

          L.E.: it seems my comment hit a sensitive spot. Thank you!

        • @Cleverdawny@lemm.eeOP
          link
          fedilink
          -102 years ago

          It’s unsurprising that many Russians look back fondly to the time when they had imperial domination over more than a dozen foreign countries, looting them for resources and using them as military puppets.

          • @MisterScruffy@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            102 years ago

            You said:

            ask someone over 50 who lives or lived in Eastern Europe.

            Are you backing down on that statement now or are you saying that Russia isn’t in Eastern Europe?

            • @Cleverdawny@lemm.eeOP
              link
              fedilink
              -82 years ago

              Russia is sometimes included in that, I wasn’t. My apologies for being unclear. Russia is the former imperial center of the Soviet Empire, so they benefited dramatically from the labor and resources of their colonies. They also never adopted the kind of modern democratic capitalism which was a competing ideology to communism during the Cold War, instead adopting a form of fascism, so I thought it was obvious to anyone that when making the comparison between capitalism and communism in Eastern Europe, a good faith participant in a discussion would look at Bulgaria, Poland, East Germany, etc.

              • @MisterScruffy@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                62 years ago

                Silly of me the think that someone who lived in Russia during the USSR would know what it’s like to live under communism

                • @Cleverdawny@lemm.eeOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -82 years ago

                  When you’re contrasting communism and capitalism, it’s strange to do it by asking someone in a fascist kleptocracy whether they miss being at the heart of a massive empire

                  Russia is about the only former communist nation which is worse off now, excepting perhaps Ukraine - blame Russia for that, too - and it’s because they’re Russia, not because they’re ex communists.

  • @scubbo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    212 years ago

    Arguments about the definitions of Communism or Property aside - yes, my farm. As in, the one I work on. The possessive pronoun, despite the name, sometimes connotes association rather than ownership - I do not own my school, my country, my street or (despite what Republicans might wish) my wife.

  • Cyborganism
    link
    fedilink
    62 years ago

    No. You’ll probably be assigned a job that’s required to be done for the good of society.

  • SirStumps
    link
    fedilink
    32 years ago

    Just as communism has been proven to fail in the past so is capitalism. It has been warped to something terrible for the common worker. I think this communism thing is just a way for people to vent their frustrations with the current system. Honestly as long as their is a corruptible person in charge no system will work as intended. And unfortunately everyone is corruptible.

    • SuperDuper
      link
      fedilink
      4
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      It may be one of those fonts that’s supposed to help with dyslexia or whatever. Because unless it’s serving some functional purpose I can’t imagine why you’d want your phone looking like you’re halfway through your sixth drink of the night.

    • @Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32 years ago

      How dare you curse me with this knowledge.

      It’s a weird font. Anything with a curved bottom dips below the level of flat bottoms.

  • ReMikeAble
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -32 years ago

    End goal; you will own nothing, and you’ll be happy. Also work harder and don’t advance.

    • @Mercival@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      122 years ago

      Isn’t that kind of where the current system is inching towards anyways? Rent, subscriptions, bullshit jobs and all that.

      • @cobra89@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        02 years ago

        No it isn’t. Communism eliminates private property. E.G. Land ownership. (You lease land from the state)

        It does not get rid of personal property. You’re still allowed to own things. A phone, a car, books, anything that is movable; pretty much anything except land and maybe buildings.

        I’m not even a fan of communism but this is just an ignorant misconception.