You must log in or register to comment.
Sure I’ll think about them, as soon as they cede all their wealth and give their companies to the workers.
Educate, agitate, organize. They will never do this willingly.
100% homie.
And if we don’t get it?
SHUT IT DOWN
Sieze it. If you’re interested, I have an introductory Marxist reading list.
I’m pretty well educated on marxist theory already, but I’ll always take more book recommendations!
Thanks! 🫡
Turbolibs
Means nothing to me. What is a turbolib? It’s difficult to understand much of anything when everyone has a different name for everyone else.
Mega liberal, ie a radical supporter of Capitalism.
Any chance you could share, blurring out the names of course?
- Promoting murder
- Planning homicide
- Call for violence
- Given the timing with a murder of a health insurance CEO, the OP appears to be supporting murdering.
- advocating violence
Nationalize:
- insurance
- hospitals
- prisons
- public transit
It’s perfectly possible to have your capitalist desires and still have a nice socialist structure to protect the people.
Social programs are not “socialism,” nor are markets “capitalism.” What determines the nature of an economy is what is dominant, the will of Capital or the will of the People. That’s why Social Democracies are sliding into austerity, because the Workers never actually siezed control Capital still dominates the system and disparity rises as a consequence.
thats kinda every socialist countrys baseline (that works) and its also why the american propaganda associates it with CoMMuNisM.
What do you mean “socialist country thay works,” in a manner opposed to Communism? Are you calling the Nordic Countries “socialist,” despite reliance on hyper-exploitation of the global south and sliding worker protections, as a means to discredit AES countries?
in Austria we call it “sozialdemokratie” and i believed americans translate that to socialism. wich is not national socialism or communism btw. and yes i do because, as i said, you can have a social base for your country and still habe a capitalist economy structure.
Social Programs within a Capitalist framework are concessions. In the European Countries, these social programs have been eroding over time, because the Workers do not have control. Moreover, the European Countries (and US, of course) rely on Imperialism, ie hyper-exploiting the Global South by exporting Capital and intentionally engaging in unequal exchange. These are parasitic countries that do not fund their safety nets inwardly, but externally, they only work like a leech works to produce food for itself, by taking from others.
The internet and all the other utilities.
Honestly anything that’s required to live in the society IMO should be socialized. That way no corporation can decided how much my life is worth. I also believe that capitalism has been an extremely powerful tool to bring wealth to the middle class. Socialized Capitalism maybe. Is that possible? Some European countries have done it I guess. I’m no expert or politician, just a working man. Maybe somehow it can be done.
Markets, not Capitalism, can be useful at lower stages of development. However, over time, they become more and more exploitative and inefficient, transforming into Imperialism across international lines. Public Ownership and Central Planning becomes more efficient with respect to the level of development of market industries.
Bourgeoisie is the middle class though. Not the rich
Wow, downvoted for using the definition of a word smh
The Bourgeoisie was the “middle class” when the aristocracy were the upper class. The majority of the world is under Bourgeois rule, not aristocratic rule, any longer, ergo the Bourgeoisie is the upper class.
Bourgeoisie does not simply mean “middle class,” it refers to a class of Capitalists. You don’t adjust what the word means, but its context.
Maybe define your terms, “bourgeoisie” and “middle class”, and explain where you’re getting these definitions from.
- https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie
- https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Middle_class_(disambiguation)
The term “middle class” has been so hopelessly redefined in so many disparate ways that it’s best to avoid using it altogether. All it does is muddy the conversation.
