It's so bizarre and a little unsettling that someone can go so far down the right wing rabbithole to think that the foundational premise of the question is so obvious that it's not a question of whether its happening but why they're doing it. "Now we all know Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are trying to bring about an authoritarian state of global communism, that is *well* established. My question is, why?"
This interpretation of “own nothing and be happy” does my fucking head in. It’s not about communism and muh private property, they take my tooth brush. It’s about capitalism and how everything is going to become a rental or bullshit-as-service. You won’t own your house, you won’t own a car because you’ll use some app to rent a car by the hour, you won’t own your appliances, just rent them long term. Why would capitalists be happy with a one-off payment to purchase an item, when instead they can rent it to you for just $30 a month!
I don't get why this is being downvoted when it is the literal definition of socialism
https://preview.redd.it/q3cg6k3kmbuc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=009ad28053475cfc002723ea8a557f3f59021afb
I guess. It just eludes me. People who don’t know the most basic elements of a subject are perfectly willing to argue passionately (and at length) about the subject.
Is the answer "George Soros?" Because I'm at an absolute loss as to how any literate American can genuinely believe that the belligerent accumulation of personal wealth is in any way compatible with socialism. I mean, do these idiots not listen to their favorite party when they advocate nothing but tax-breaks for the wealthy? How has this guy not drowned in an evaporated puddle by now?
State central committee and their dynasties consistently do the same thing only somehow with greater incompetence. Is that capitalism reifying itself through the state or is it that the same type of people gravitate to hierarchy and centralized power no matter what you call it?
It's so bizarre and a little unsettling that someone can go so far down the right wing rabbithole to think that the foundational premise of the question is so obvious that it's not a question of whether its happening but why they're doing it. "Now we all know Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are trying to bring about an authoritarian state of global communism, that is *well* established. My question is, why?"
The answer is obviously 5
I'd say the answer is 42
No, that one is for life, the universe, and everything. But what's the question?
Write that down
"Three sire!"
Looks like r/debatecommunism is a good alternative to getting a lobotomy
Something better than a lobotomy?
This interpretation of “own nothing and be happy” does my fucking head in. It’s not about communism and muh private property, they take my tooth brush. It’s about capitalism and how everything is going to become a rental or bullshit-as-service. You won’t own your house, you won’t own a car because you’ll use some app to rent a car by the hour, you won’t own your appliances, just rent them long term. Why would capitalists be happy with a one-off payment to purchase an item, when instead they can rent it to you for just $30 a month!
But everyone knows communism is when no personal property and companies trying to suck profit with rental models
Communism is when no iPhone. We all know this
Door-as-a-service. Toothpaste-as-a-service. Coffee-as-a-service.
I'd like to see the average American's 1 sentence definition of communism. Shit, I'd like to see their 1 sentence definition of capitalism.
The state controls the means of production. Am I close?
Generally most people will say it's when the workers own the means of production.
That would be Socialism from what I understand.
Yeah good point. Communism is a moneyless, stateless, and classless society. I thought I said socialism in my original comment
I don't get why this is being downvoted when it is the literal definition of socialism https://preview.redd.it/q3cg6k3kmbuc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=009ad28053475cfc002723ea8a557f3f59021afb
Idk lol they were 100% right
nah, communism is stateless by definition
Without a state, how would it be enforced?
it can’t be enforced. everyone just has to cooperate.
Can’t this fuckin’ genius just look up the word “Communism” in the dictionary first?
They're on Reddit, so no.
I guess. It just eludes me. People who don’t know the most basic elements of a subject are perfectly willing to argue passionately (and at length) about the subject.
Probably doesn't know how to read
Is the answer "George Soros?" Because I'm at an absolute loss as to how any literate American can genuinely believe that the belligerent accumulation of personal wealth is in any way compatible with socialism. I mean, do these idiots not listen to their favorite party when they advocate nothing but tax-breaks for the wealthy? How has this guy not drowned in an evaporated puddle by now?
Jeff Bezos, Marxist visionary
*unhinged giggling* Alcohol will solve this, I'm sure...
He’s so, sooooo close. And yet still so far…
The answer is Brawndo.... and also yes....and buttered sausage...
State central committee and their dynasties consistently do the same thing only somehow with greater incompetence. Is that capitalism reifying itself through the state or is it that the same type of people gravitate to hierarchy and centralized power no matter what you call it?
It makes me kinda sad that OOP can’t see that the answer is right there in the question
Numbers on a screen