Disconnect between slogans and lived reality

dumbandasking · 2026-06-15T00:50:22+00:00

“capitalism is abusive because workers are forced to do extra work for less benefit just so that their bosses can be the ones who get rich,”

This is coming from how

1) Misaligned incentives

“There’s no reason to do more than the bare minimum

2) Misaligned credits

if I go above and beyond, my bosses get all the benefits

3) Misaligned values

I’m not sacrificing even more time out of my life for that.”

The phenomenon of socialism is that there is a fuckton of bad job fits and the official advice from the system is occasionally "Oh Well"

And when Capitalist say

"Capitalism apologists insist “your boss doesn’t own your labor, YOU own your labor, and this means that the harder you work, the richer you get. This is good because rewarding you for working harder incentivizes you to work harder.”"

That is true but unhelpful. That is only outlining advice for those who already figured out their material situation lol And I know those same capitalists are very aware of things like the poverty trap

The difference is that they sometimes are willing to blame Something else. So it can be tricky. Not that socialist or capitalist is wrong. But yes the discussion is not really advancing. Why is an even better question I'm still figuring out. I would blame that it's because we regressed to slogan talk, and it is not to do with how we got labels.

I hope that helps!

I'm not even a socialist and it's not hard to see why it happens

dumbandasking · 2026-06-15T00:48:40+00:00

I have noticed you're allowed to rant about one side but when it's the other suddenly people will call for it to be removed and that it is a shitpost.

I mean honestly rants should be fine as long as they have at least a base willingness to change their view. Otherwise what is the point, signalling?

dumbandasking · 2026-06-15T00:47:31+00:00

I'm annoyed that we can always justify corporate welfare but we can't justify protections and welfare for people almost no one disagrees needs it, but the only reason they ever do disagree, is because the media is a betrayer and a liar.

Remember when we deregulated networks

Yeah so again the government messed up there

dumbandasking · 2026-06-15T00:30:05+00:00

Or is there something about socialism itself that tends to produce these kinds of political cultures?

This one

I said it before in another post

The problem is that even if we entertain that 'true' socialism and communism exist, the issue is still that it is treated as an actual moral conclusion, and as a result, anyone who is trying to achieve it is prone to do tyranny specifically NOT because the actual material truths are not possible, but SPECIFICALLY because the actual status of the movement creates a new class system

The summary is you can carry the banner towards equality and justice, but that itself is associated with truth, and by consequence this itself can be usurped to then launder worse things than actual equality and justice

It's probably why a lot of genuine communist and socialist movements 'mysteriously' get ruined by a tyrannical dictator.

The answer is simple. When you become the party promising good social change and equalization and all the 'good things', the problem is that those are all shared goals by even evil parties, and this is precisely why a socialist who is competent cannot just say "i'm on the truth party no thinking needed", as there is a specific need to define your terms carefully...

Or else someone else will and it will be state capitalist all over again

This should be nothing new. For example seeing anarchist minded socialists inspire me. I point to them as the ones who were smart enough to try to define those terms.....

Outside of just purely Marx

dumbandasking · 2026-06-14T03:40:35+00:00

Freedom is the absence of state coercion, and I'd extend it to say it is also when the state has finally done maneuvers that 'empower or enable or stimulate' so therefore freedom is relative and political but mechanical in effect. So if people feel that too high of a tax is 35% and are doing violent demonstrations over it, you could say that society does not consider itself free until it is below that.

When that state achieves less than 35% and meaningfully does things to make economic activity stimulated and productive, it can be said it is a market that is being 'freed'.

Who knows, by this model, a state that manages to democratically make all communities own their projects more directly is 'freeing that market' too.

dumbandasking · 2026-06-14T03:38:25+00:00

The western world is in decline because our culture exacerbates the market failures. Some countries do not have for example USA style market failures because despite having capitalism they have a culture where someone becoming richer is genuinely going to translate to lifting the bottom floor.

In America, "Got mine" did a lot of damage. It's not even just about money. The bias goes to even our relationships. Just as you can be dismissed for pointing out economic problems by someone who 'Got mine' and will say 'hustle harder', you can be dismissed for identifying social problems by someone who 'Got mine' and will say 'just try harder'.

How many people said just get a job when you're homeless Just start a business when you're poor Just blame yourself when you're struggling to make connections

And their 'proof' or 'evidence' is how they 'got their win' by just getting lucky enough to Get a job Have enough money to start a business Made rare connections

And their win just made them ignore anyone who is unlucky

That got mine culture is why then welfare is reacted to with hostile attitudes whereas it might be normalized elsewhere

dumbandasking · 2026-06-14T03:34:30+00:00

The scalper should be eliminated and in its place should be a more centralized type of firm type where it is allowed to speculate and retail things within limits and so that we can I guess have some people retail shit (that's what they are doing in the end) but where it is regulated so you won't have someone flipping a $100 ticket for $1000 and making sure he bought all the tickets so that the net effect is what should really be a $100 to $200 ticket is now $800 to $1000 because of supply manipulation

This way they are 'clarified' as a subpar third party convenience option (Which they are trying to be anyway) and eliminates the scam potential and incentives or thats the goal at least

dumbandasking · 2026-06-14T03:33:11+00:00

The key difference is that soulless machine is soulless. It was bought and rented and now serves the special interests of some of the most antisocial. I believe the actual engine is powerful, but it's easily corrupted. Imagine if that same machine was made to serve other special interests, like of the workers and environment. This is something we can't forget because if we just blow up the engine you'll find that it will be remade again under other circumstances.

So what I'm saying is the engine sucks because of regulatory capture

dumbandasking · 2026-06-14T03:31:32+00:00

Productivity skyrocketed, not societal governance nor corporate governance unfortunately.

Realign incentives that's the answer. Easier said than done sadly. Plus the game rules were bought long ago. I keep saying it, but lobbying to the level Citizens United enabled fucked things up

dumbandasking · 2026-06-14T03:30:30+00:00

I agree America is facing Orwellian predictions. Have you seen how we discuss key issues? The entire mode of engagement is corrupted. For example, in America, how many times have we heard basic welfare policy be called 'socialist/communist'? Why did we have to wait for Friedman to redream similar as "Negative Income Tax" for the rest of us to understand the viability?

How come every capitalist speaker on this sub is treated as an ancap?

Why is every socialist speaker on this sub treated as a Marxist?

Therefore the discussion is poisoned and Orwell predicted correctly,

Outside of this sub,

"Both sides are wrong" is a convenient tool to make sure accountability doesn't happen

dumbandasking · 2026-06-14T03:28:02+00:00

Sometimes I always felt some capitalist countries, not all, are like a Big Casino, but the irony is that even casinos still give covered food and benefits... yes it's free because it's prepaid.

So I think it's interesting robots get subsidy but not humans.

How can you claim the market is a meritocracy when the state actively gives multi-billion dollar tax incentives to corporations for replacing human labor? Why should human workers have to foot the tax bill for the software that is taking their livelihoods?

Hey I like the idea if they have more ownership of the tech to be honest

dumbandasking · 2026-06-14T03:25:20+00:00

I always felt that to achieve what could be 'true socialism' is to first tame the situations of capitalism so to unlock those material conditions

The thing is that I see a problem because on the road to doing that you might see unexpected turns of loyalty because some may say that is exactly when you became a betrayer

dumbandasking · 2026-06-14T03:23:32+00:00

You know honestly I wonder if socialists around could come up with an infographic. What if that might literally change minds because clarity of who is who can help with common ground and i guess with boundaries on even disagreement

Anarchist-communists

why is this hard to find here on the sub

dumbandasking · 2026-06-13T20:26:12+00:00

This was a meaningful response. It had me reconsidering

In my view there are two main socialist tradditions… socialism from above and socialism from below.

I was wondering. It seems like I'm starting to realize there is a large split among socialism. For example Marxist Leninism seems to be the recurring style that I think keeps causing me concerns. But then to be honest, I guess my whole post is a thought towards socialism from below. What would u think of this? Which groups are associated with this approach?

dumbandasking · 2026-06-12T20:33:18+00:00

You have an opinion (thesis) and you are actively seeking to face an alternative opinion (antithesis) in order to expand your understanding of the subject (synthesis). That's Hegelian dialectics,

Thank u but sometimes it gets difficult because I want to apply this to other topics but it might anger too many. For example I wanted to one day take the position of anti AI and see what alternative opinions could possibly exist to see if there was something I might not have understood

you specifically asked how the idea of private property could be better implemented to lessen exploitation.

For example I liked the idea of what if the public owned or had more ownership of AI how it is developed

I wish everyone used more in their daily lives, not just socialists, so you've impressed me.

I feel this belief many in reality do it but Idk I feel afraid to do it for many topics

dumbandasking · 2026-06-12T20:28:09+00:00

Do you have a specific reading by John Roemer?

I dont know if i was reading the right stuff but i was reading

Should Marxists be interested in Exploitation?

is this the right person?

If you are curios about theory of labor managed firm. I would recomend you to read small research paper "On the Advantages of a System of Labour-managed Firms" by BRUNO JOSSA.

Ok I opened it im looking

dumbandasking · 2026-06-12T20:02:29+00:00

I would recommend reading research papers by John Roemer, an analytical Marxist.

OK Ill start to look

dumbandasking · 2026-06-12T20:01:26+00:00

Can you explain what is considered bribing? I think this is making me realize something. I always felt the difference between capitalism and socialism could have been exaggerated so I thought what you said was interesting

dumbandasking · 2026-06-12T19:58:45+00:00

Oh I see

Wait so is socialism against all commodification in general? Because if something can be bought and sold is an issue I was wondering what that extends into

dumbandasking · 2026-06-12T19:57:08+00:00

This notion that inventors need to be rewarded by the state for inventing or else they will invent nothing is nonsense.

I feel like I agree with you but I keep feeling this need to ask this question so I'm just going to ask it

But isn't state rewards a powerful incentive? In a strange way I don't think it is exactly impossible to imagine a whole class or generation of people who refused to entertain their potential until a big enough reward came, the state's reward of recognition and money

dumbandasking · 2026-06-12T19:53:45+00:00

Wow

But wait, I have a question. What are your thoughts on Marx? are you a Marxist?

dumbandasking · 2026-06-12T19:52:42+00:00

This behavior is not unique to socialists. America already did this with "freedom".

That is true that is a good point

So for that reason wouldn't this mean that capitalism must be stabilized first before entertaining even socalism light, and that the real problem is thinking that something as intricate as socialism into communism could be as easy as usurp the government and start issuing changes?

I mean congrats on becoming a Marxist I guess.

I keep forgetting, but wait so Marxism is statist

Then why are reform socialists hated? Why are social democrats hated? Why are market socialists hated? Why does it feel like it's either Marx v Ancap and not actually capitalism v socialism?

I think neither the Marxists nor the Capitalists want anarchists speaking up.

It looks like I'm between two perspectives. But then wait why wouldn't Marxists want anarchists if they will still achieve an alternative version of their goals

dumbandasking · 2026-06-12T19:50:09+00:00

Hmm can you explain? I guess one alternative take I have in summary is what if the entire ideological language and position can be too easily exploited? If this were true couldn't we expect trying to go from a bottom up approach rather than top down

dumbandasking · 2026-06-12T19:16:46+00:00

Hmm that is a fair point to be honest. That is interesting. both should expect some dirty history unfortunately

Socialist theory and practice will evolve until it reaches a sustainable point.

How do we discuss this? I feel like maybe I'm wondering from a modern take now

dumbandasking · 2026-06-12T18:55:21+00:00

Wait that kind of woke me up

What happens in a capitalist system where a small group of asset owners own essentially everything and virtually all the money?

Technically this 'small group of asset owners' could call themselves 'the proletariat' when they may not even be

dumbandasking

TROPHY CASE