this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2025
1021 points (96.5% liked)
Microblog Memes
8757 readers
2933 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, never said that was socialism, only that's how a fair society can only operate. Also, depending on the socialism in the context, it might not even be a transitionary period but rather bourgeois socialism that Marx criticized thoroughly in Critique of Gotha Programme, which is where 99% of my comment comes from
The market forces workers to exploit themselves, given how the primary way cost cutting happens is through decrease of wages, as most production costs are set in stone (like materials needed or machinery upkeep
Yes, but if they pay a portion of value of their labor, they don't get the full value. It's an involuntary payment that is good and necessary, but the point is that getting full value is impossible under bourgeois state and commodity production society
Ok, well it's confusing how you worded it then because you start by saying "It’s not socialism", and then you describe communism. It made it sound as if you were saying that it was socialism.
Sure, and some societies already act as if the end goal is socialism. Even so I think it's valuable to try and work toward socialism because even if it doesn't ever fully transition to communism (or is extremely slow about it), that state of being is still preferable to Capitalism.
Sure, under Capitalism that's true- I doubt the first thing a collective of workers would think to do is cutting their wages. They would probably cut the CEO's and the Middle Managers pay to make the pay fair for everybody.
I just disagree with your definition of 'exploit'. Agreeing with your fellow workers to take home less pay to keep the factory viable is not exploitation. A CEO cutting workers pay so that hey can pay himself $40,000,000/yr IS exploitation. It's not the same thing at all imo.
Again, the definitely DO get the full value of their labor. A worker is a member of the community. A worker pay's taxes for things that benefit the community. As a member of the community, the taxes benefit the worker.
It's only 'involuntary' if you are stuck in a capitalist mode of thinking and aren't willingly pitching in to help the community. If socialism 'forces' such a person to help- that's only going to benefit the community. Under communism no one could force such a person to contribute.
I really don't think most socialists are as hung op on getting the 'full value' out of their labor as you are making it sound. It's not about squeezing every last penny of 'profit' from your labor as is humanly possible. It's about being fairly compensated for your time and effort- that's it. If we "have" to pay taxes- fine. If we "have" to accept a slightly lower compensation for a time fine.
CEO's cutting benefits and pay to pay themselves more money- not fine. Wage theft- not fine.
If we could snap our fingers and go straight from a Capitalist hellhole to a Communist utopia- I'd be snapping right along with you. We can't though and as you can tell it's hard enough to get people on board with socialism. There is no way most people will just accept jumping straight to Communism. They have to be shown that sharing resources is a viable strategy first- because they definitely don't believe that now.
Sorry if this might come as rude or elitist - not my intention as I've been there, but I'd really recommend reading some theory if you're interested in this kind of stuff. Even some shorter works of Marx & Engels will dispel A LOT of misconceptions a leftist might have about socialism/communism/what's actually the problem/etc that one might get just via osmosis of the popular discourse.
Now to respond to some of the points (though not all, too tired right now):
My point about workers not getting full value from their labor mostly targets the wording in the meme, it's pedantry. Whether you think it's fair to count taxes or not isn't really relevant, but the fact that you have a system where whether you like it or not the state will take away some of your earnings from your labor means that you cannot really receive the full value of your labor, something always will get deducted. Though there was a better example of this I should have used, directly related to labor that you end up making:
Taking less pay in order to compete in the market economy is literally what capitalists do on behalf of workers - take their surplus value to expand production and remain competitive (and ofc live off of this surplus value themselves individually). In a coop, this would also happen under a market economy as you yourself say, and this money will come from the value of the commodities they produce as in the fruits of their labor they're supposed to be getting "full value" of. See how it doesn't make sense?
Also, I admit I should have asked this previously, but what exactly is socialism defined by for you? Based on your comment, I gather that few things exist in this socialism, and those are:
Now I might be wrong about these and maybe you have a different definition in mind, but this is pretty much identical to a social democracy which is still fully capitalist. Coops exist within capitalism right this moment in some countries - individual companies where workers collectively own the means of production, but they still have to play within the rules of capitalist mode of production.
Sure, it might be better but socialist/communist goal isn't to make things better, but to change the current state of things entirely. This is why actual socialism, which is defined by figures like Lenin, Marx and other non-falsifier communist theorists has markets and commodity production already abolished. Before socialism after workers take power, there is a period of transition where commodity production at least partially remains in place as a way to distribute goods while productive forces (like factories and infrastructure) are still being developed so everyone's needs can actually be met during socialist stage.
Money gets abolished in favor of labor vouchers that get discarded after being used up (so there's no more accumulation of capital), things start being produced for use - there's still a long way to go towards communism at this stage, but this is how you actually stop being capitalist and create a separate mode of production instead of just making things a bit better but still fundamentally capitalist.
Anyway yap yap nobody reads this as seen from the amount of upvotes, still had to leave one as it would have felt rude if I didn't and just left you hanging there
It's ok. I understand that a lot of my thinking doesn't align with Marxist-Leninist ideas and people who are die hard believers in any particular label tend to assume that others who don't think exactly like them are just ill informed or haven't 'read theory'. I don't really love labels but if you had to put the most general one you could on me it would be 'Anarcho-communist'. I'm probably more Anarchist than Communist, but in a world where 'The State' has been eliminated I would be more communist than anything else.
Marx and Engels were great thinkers, but I don't agree with everything they espoused. For one thing I don't think anybody from their time could have predicted how the world would end up today. For another they were just human beings, not prophets. It is and should be an evolving discussion based on the real world, not just ideals. Being too rigid in their thinking and adhering too closely to foundational texts is why I left the church when I was 18. I have no desire to regress to similarly rigid thinking.
Again, I don't really think that your idea of what 'full value of labor' and what many socialists mean line up at all. It's about being fairly compensated for your labor- that's really all it means. Seems like a silly thing to get hung up on when its basically a straw man.
It makes perfect sense if you remove the words "full value" and replace it with 'fair compensation'.
Think of it this way, in a communist society people also work without receiving the 'full value' of their labor for the benefit of themselves and their community right? So we agree that people can be better than pure profit motive driven greed machines. Why would work under Communism and not Socialism?
The most common way that socialism gets defined, not just by me but my most sources, is a system where 'private property' is abolished, and the workers own the means of production. In my view this means that everything else (natural resources, national parks, etc) are owned by the people in common.
As to what specific features socialism has to have on top of that- there are a variety of options. I can say what I would like to happen, and what I would advocate for, but I am no mans ruler and it would ultimately be up the the people to work out the fine details.
Those people had their own ideas about what socialism/communism is- but they were by no means the only people with ideas- those just happen to be the ones gained the most popularity. There were communists before Marx and Engles and there were a lot after that didn't' agree with everything that they believed in. They can give their definitions of what those things are- they can't give the definition. Things can differ from their vision and it still be 'actual socialism'.
That's one way to do it, but it kind of depends on each country being self sufficient. After all we can't trade for things we might need from countries that have it with labor vouchers only good in our country. If the labor vouchers are transferable, - it's no different than just using money.
To get pedantic myself, the goal is to radically change the current state of things- because we think that will be better, so the goal is absolutely to make things better. The question isn't where we want to end up, we can pretty much all agree on that (I think), but how we get there is the tricky part.
People are highly resistant to change. There are basically only two choices when it comes to radical change in a society
Option 1. Try and force the change on them. I don't think this will ever work in the long term. People will fight back and resent you for using force on them. When the end goal is to have a fair and humane society where everyone is equal and we all do the right things because they are the right things- using this method is more likely to backfire than any other strategy.
Option 2. Educate people and advocate for the change you want to see in the world. Allow people to choose the right thing of their own free will and with informed consent. In my humble opinion this is the only way that a lasting communist society could ever possibly form.
If you hold people down and make them 'act right', the second you release the pressure they will try to hold you down and make you act like they want you to act. If you show people a better way and invite them to join you- they are more likely to follow along with the program.
That being said there is only so much a society can reasonably be expected to take, and when the Capitalists take the gloves off and go full fascist mode- the chances of the people violently revolting are high. If that were to happen in the U.S. I can all but guarantee that it won't be replaced by communism.
Don't mistake me- I'm not saying that we can win by asking nicely. I don't think we will ever be able to achieve socialism or communism by voting for it, and I don't think the ruling class will go down without a fight- but I think there is a decent 3rd option between forcing our beliefs on people and being unwilling to get our hands dirty. Get people to choose change first, to demand change, and fight with them against their oppressors.
Robots. Robot slaves for everyone is the solution.
Fully automated luxury gay space communism