this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
562 points (98.8% liked)

Memes

48655 readers
2347 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

Of course, you could just talk about "Tax The Rich" or "Bring Back the New Deal" but then how could people know you read Karl Marx?

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

Only taxing the rich or bringing back the New Deal perpetuates Capitalism, we are talking about Socialism here, not Social Democracy. In that respect, when we analyze AES states, all have a firm understanding of Marxist theory, showing that it indeed has practical merit.

If you want to get started with theory, I keep an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list you can check out if you want.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

So?

If the workers have a 25 hour week with universal health care and great pensions who cares if the billionaires have spaceships to Mars?

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

Considering we are speaking about the US, those safety nets would come from the massive Imperialism the US commits constantly. Workers in the Global South would continue to slave away so workers in the US can live cushy lives.

In a Socialist system, we can end that, but under Capitalism there is no path to deliberately end the practice of Imperialism, as it forms the basis of US foreign policy, and why the US Empire has hundreds of millitary bases around the world.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Or we could be doing asteroid mining and getting raw materials from off-planet.

Marx and Lenin never wrote about that because they both died a century ago.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 47 minutes ago (1 children)

And we would continue to centralize and give power to fewer and fewer hands, when we could provide much better living standards for all.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 38 minutes ago (1 children)

You're ignoring the part where I said everyone has a high standard of living.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 36 minutes ago (1 children)

We don't live in that theoretical fantasy world, and moreover that still does not logically justify allowing a small handful of people to live like gods. I am talking about reality, not a dream you had.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 26 minutes ago (1 children)

lol!

Look who is talking about dreaming.

Have a nice day and don't hold your breath until the revolution.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 24 minutes ago (1 children)

Revolution has already happened in quite a few countries, one of them with one of the largest economies and populations on the planet. It's more a matter of time.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 20 minutes ago (1 children)

So, while we wait for the inevitable revolution, why not bring back the New Deal?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 18 minutes ago (1 children)

It wouldn't be terrible if it happened, but there's no path to actually making that happen that wouldn't make more sense to go for revolution. Even when congress was more controlled by the Democrats, no such program emerged.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 13 minutes ago (1 children)

Now you're saying the New Deal never existed?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 minutes ago

No, I'm not. The conditions that led to the New Deal are entirely different from the conditions of today, so we must reexamine if such a program could be forced into passing today. I don't believe there's a path to that, unless there is already revolutionary pressure bubbling and risking the entire system.

[–] JustAnotherKay@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (4 children)

I've been thinking a lot recently about how to rephrase socialist ideals as capitalist bills for the sake of America.

I want to propose a "Proof of Economic Viability Bill" somewhere if I can find the right influence point.

Basically, financial advisors suggest that people should pay no more than 30% of their income towards living expenses. Knowing that the vast majority of Americans only have income from their primary job, this means that any business should be expected to pay no less than 30% of their income, evenly divided across the entire workforce (cart pusher to CEO), as a "living expense allotment" to prove they can afford to pay their workers enough to live and stay afloat. This will push out companies who are doomed to fail because of a lack of available workforce, allowing more economically viable options to reign king.

Edit to add: you can make this sound a little nicer to the maga crowd by telling them they can reduce wages by doing this. I don't necessarily care that you're paying minimum wage as long as you can afford to put your worker in a home and fill their stomach.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago

Historically, this just doesn't work, and it even risks supporting PatSoc movements like the American Communist Party (not to be confused with the CPUSA), also known as "MAGA Communism." Essentially Imperialism combined with Communist aesthetics. You need to be honest with people, otherwise they will learn they have been tricked and resent you. Further, this isn't really Socialism, but Capitalism with bigger safety nets.

The problem with policy is that it needs material foundational backing, otherwise it will be walked back if the class in power doesn't like it.

[–] stickly@lemmy.world 4 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

You just described what the minimum wage was supposed to be, and plenty of red blooded American patriots already hate that.

[–] JustAnotherKay@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

I realize my other comment didn't actually properly answer your concern. You are right about this being the equivalent of minimum wage. However, the meaning of wages have changed since the time when those laws were made. We don't need companies to prove they can pay their people for today, because we have technology that lasts hundreds of years if properly maintained. We need them to prove they are economically viable forever.

[–] JustAnotherKay@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

You're absolutely right. However, if you use the right magic words you can convince them that it will be good for them. Constituents will be happy because their bills will be guaranteed to be paid by their company, and investors will be happy because they can look at a company and instantly see whether they can make money off it. It just so happens that politicians tend to be into the same things as investors

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago

However, if you use the right magic words you can convince them that it will be good for them.

This is Utopianism, and was practiced by early Socialists like the Owenites. The problem is that such a practice never works. One of Marx's major advancements was in developing Scientific Socialism, which looks at material reality and its trends to see how to better guide them.

[–] yucandu@lemmy.world 4 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Stop using polysyallabic words like "proletariat" when trying to appeal to the American working class who read at a 5th grade level.

Seriously. Like the guy in Severance said. Apologize for the word. It's too long.

[–] JustAnotherKay@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago

No no, you just have to use the right ones that they like. The "magic words" so to speak. Investors really like "economic viability" because it means they can instantly look at a company and see if they can make money off it. Politicians just so happen to be interested in a lot of the same things as investors for some reason.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee -1 points 16 hours ago

I go even simpler.

The New Deal.

Make the GOPs explain why we could pay salaries that let one earner support a family of four in 1940 and can't do it today.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

It's the opposite, actually.

The people who talk about "tax the rich" or the New Deal don't actually do anything, they are armchair activists who have no real idea of how they would ever accomplish this outside of pretending the Democratic Party, which constantly opposes them and crushes such ideas, is the vehiclr, and the way to make it happen is complaining on the internet.

Communists know that actually addressing our collective problems is a much more difficult task, nothing less than the overthrow of capitalism, something that would need to survive attempts at cooption by liberal power structures like the aforementioned party. So we build from the ground up, educating one another and developing practice so that we can balance growth, education, and having impact through actions. We go to the meetings, we run the meetings, we teach one another, we organize the protests and marches, we build the strategic mutual aid events, we embed with workers' spaces and unions, we embed with and build from within the marginalized so as to be of them. Communist organizing is adding a part-time job on top of your other obligations.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee -2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, we should definitely not have something like Sweden or the old New Deal. We should let children grow up in poverty, let old people suffer, and let the planet burn while we sit around discussing Trotsky and the Second International in hopes that the revolution will come.

iirc de La Cruz got less than 100,000 votes.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, we should definitely not have something like Sweden or the old New Deal.

I think you need to refamiliarize yourself with what I said, as this is not it.

We should let children grow up in poverty, let old people suffer, and let the planet burn while we sit around discussing Trotsky and the Second International in hopes that the revolution will come.

I said something that is the exact opposite of sitting around, actually. Do your best to read a little more carefully before sharing opinions.

iirc de La Cruz got less than 100,000 votes.

And?

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee -1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Keep on arguing on the interwebs.

Maybe someone will notice.

Maybe.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Do you think you're doing something else?

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 0 points 2 hours ago

I do stuff offline.

All you guys ever do is argue. Name one thing you guys have done in America in the last 50 years.