this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2026
636 points (97.9% liked)
Memes
54765 readers
1756 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I've only heard anti socialists say that as a way of smearing socialism. This is the kind of shit you hear in a PragerU video or something.
That's the problem.
It is pretty easy to smear any *-ism or honestly any buzzword.
See what's happening with the word AI.
Some scientists use a very specialised model to make an actual +ive impact and everyone says "AI is great!" and use that to drive funding for destabilising the technology industry/market.
Those who like to irresponsibly control people, will use buzzwords to attract people into groups and then use them to further an unrelated agenda by slowly drifting away from everything the word once stood for.
This is essentially the history we know of: under the names of gods of religions, of languages, and then ideologies and regimes.
In the end, all of them go to help those who will control people without caring about how they use them.
What's your proposed solution then?
I don't have a solution for others.
Only one that I decided for myself and then applied it.
You gotta find your own balance point for how much you care about correctness and how much you are fine being led astray by "leaders" in turn for likeability and easy conversations.
I personally don't subscribe to the idea of leaders who can't justify their position. Maybe your problem is that you see socialism as a system to be implemented rather than a thing that you do? Like, socialism is, and should be a constant revolutionary project, not just a static position.
If you try to put it that way, that then again opens it for others to add/remove as they feel like.
While I understand that socialism is not some hard program that can exactly apply to every scenario, there has to be some tenets of it that are defended well, to prevent a malicious actor from uprooting its base.
My personal solution is simply that I don't subscribe to any *-ism and don't group myself with anything even if it tends to provide similar solutions in the current scenario, simply because in some other one, the group's solution might end up greatly differing from what I would consider acceptable.
There's is. It's really simple: "From each, according to their ability, to each, according to their need." Anything else on top of that is philosophical.
This is a similar tact that I took when I was about 16-17, but I find that to be a very naive point of view. Regardless of whether or not you want to apply any label to yourself (which is perfectly valid) the material conditions of the system we live in will come down on you too. So you either end up in the "We are stronger together" camp, or you end up in the "Me and mine are what needs to be protected. Other people be damned" camp. And if you find yourself in the former, you most likely align with people who call themselves socialist, and if you find yourself in the latter, well then you're probably a bootlicker
Considering how I have seen people claiming to be from the former camp expecting bootlickers, I'd say that assumption doesn't work out well in real life.
Those who try preaching "We are stronger together" and "according to their ability" are most of the times the same who would damn everyone when they find the perfect time, while also using the same words to make others give them a hierarchical position.
And in the end, you still have the players get power while the workers get exploited and their voices shut down.
Opportunism is a real problem in every system, but you can stop it if you're well organized. Ultimately I reject your framing because if we were all power hungry we'd be licking fascist boots, not talking to the powerless.
Problem is, you are not my colleague or my boss or similar people. You are someone I might not even end up interacting IRL.
Most people will just ignore the people slowly amassing power because they tend to be discreet enough to not raise too many alarms and the same thing might look like just incompetence unless one is looking closely enough.
Then there will be people who just find it easier to de-escalate situations, no matter what the outcome, that end up helping the malicious ones get out unscathed. Cover-ups follow.
And the power-hungry will mostly be found in places of power. Whether you interact with them directly, depends upon where you end up working.
The most hard working and benevolent people I have seen, are coincidentally also those who tell you to care about yourself.
They won't preach teamwork or communality, but that comes naturally to them. They won't ask you to help others, but will help with what they are good at and not treat it as a favour. They don't bid you to be helpful, but enable you to get to a place where you can be helpful. Also, they won't act like they overtly care about you.
I feel like you've interacted with too many socialists online. That is not my irl experience at all. In fact, your last paragraph there does describe most irl socialists.
Except that they neither identify as socialists, nor do they care about the other's *-ism.
So you see, one neither needs to be any *-ist nor requires to accept all terms of any group, to be able to have +ive interactions with them. The only time that is required, is when it is an extremist group.
I think you're way too hung up on labels. Why do you give a shit what somebody else calls themselves? Maybe you've just been meeting socialists that know you have a weird anti"-ism" thing, so they just don't use that word and instead describe ideas to you (which is a fairly common tactic to take around somebody that is slightly unhinged). Nobody said everybody needs to be any kind of anything. There are lots of helpful people to socialist causes who don't consider themselves to be socialists. That's called critical support is is highly valued.