You may be on to something there, though some of the quieter ones I have names for, like the Mercers or the Waltons, do seem miserable from what I know about them.

Still, if those are outliers, unless the quiet capitalists are secretly richer than their loudest and most obnoxious counterparts, I can’t help but wonder why the richest among them are also the loudest and most miserable.

Apparently as long as you have someone else do the immoral things on your behalf, its all gravy. Free will and all right? They could have just not done the evil things that I paid them to do.

I guess I see what you’re saying, especially since there’s a call-out to someone falling backwards on the left side.

If I had to guess it’s to showcase the grind can’t last forever, but I suppose it could introduce that ambiguity that causes pause.

Yeah, i saw this on c/all. My bad.

Even then, if a Communist or Socialist party took power, the other mechanisms of the State will work against it. Allende proved this.

It obviously does have stages that progress towards each other, and the reason it progresses in a certain way is due to mechanics of the system. It’s not backsliding towards anything, it’s evolving under the selection pressures encoded in its rules. Incidentally, this is what the game of monopoly illustrates. Everybody starts on even footing and over time, through competition, all the capital accumulates with a single player. This happens regardless how many times you play the game.

It’ intellectually lazy to think that feudalism just magically reasserts itself without thinking about the process that leads to capitalism turning back into feudalism.

That tends to be a general problem with human societies, and as Cowbee points out there’s nothing about communism that makes society more prone to corruption. If anything, I’d argue it’s the opposite since you have less inequality. In general, I look at corruption as a form of inefficiency. So, a government that has corruption, but works in the interests of the majority overall is still a better scenario than one that works in the interest of a capital owning minority.

What about the Soviet system is more prone to corruption than, say, your standard Western Country? If you can answer specifically what you’re concerned about, then we can answer why the Soviet System is better, or has had advancements since the USSR such as the concept of the Mass Line to account for weaknesses.

If you’re unfamiliar with Marxism, I can recommend some good reading to understand it. It’s incredibly easy to make up your own conclusions about Marxism if you are only aware of part of Marxism, which is a broad topic itself.

You get rid of the people who would bribe them and then you pay government officials the same as the average worker.

The graph highlights that during Soviet times at least 20% of wealth is in top10% hands, the party leaders and their cronies. If it was truly communism then the top10% would own 10% of the wealth. The party leaders and their cronies owned a disproportionate amount of wealth. Everyone was equal, but some were more equal among others.

“True Communism” isn’t a thing. You don’t measure metrics by how purely they adhere to ideology, but by measurable improvements for the Working Class. There is Capitalism, Socialism (where the USSR stood), Lower-Stage Communism, and Upper-Stage Communism. Each of these phases takes time and looks different. Marxism has never been about equal pay, but the Proletariat taking control and working towards Communism. Communism cannot be instantly lept to, and even if it could, it has never been about equal pay.

Additionally, pay was higher for doctors, engineers, professors, and other skilled workers, as is in line with Marxism. It wasn’t just Party Members.

It also highlights how the erosion of social services and a lack of a federal government opposing corporate interests is to the detriment of its people.

In what way? In the USSR, Healthcare and Education were free, housing was cheap, public transit was highly developed, and workers had more vacation days and earlier retirement than US workers.

Authoritarianism is not the way, and neither is crony capitalism in a farcical democracy.

Explain what you mean by any of that gibberish.

Top 10% owning 10% of wealth makes no sense as it means perfectly equal wealth redistribution. It is an ultimate goal, but it is not practically achievable. 20% is close enough.

Distribution of pretax national income (before taxes and transfers, except pensions and unempl. insurance)

My grandparents were forced to cut onions in the soviet onion! they still remember this when they cry and how stalin was holding the big spoon up to them and demanding more onions! “mr stalin sir too many onions is going to cause flatulence” they screamed but stalin didnt care

Retvrn to feudalism.

Fascism? Feudalism? What is it that you’re implying here?

What other modes of production are currently in use by existing nations?

He skimmed the communist manifesto for 15 minutes then stepped up to

Name them, Captain Smug. Tell us about whatever quaint Northern European social democratic paradise that you got excited about after reading about it on Reddit, that compartmentalizes and outsources all the suffering you don’t want to know about.

Name one

Every person who says this will simply describe capitalism with more welfare

you can either have private jackasses own everything like petty kings of their little financial fiefdoms, or you can have capital be socially owned and operated without the explicit need for next quarter profit seeking, those are your fucking choices you nerd

I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about. Do you think that a random party guy in Siberia can just say “Nope, the USSR cannot get any oil now” and nothing would be done and he’d be showered in women and coke? Or… Yeah, what the fuck are you talking about?

When asked to criticize communism, liberals will simply describe capitalism.

Wait, OP has only communism in mind?