at this point I think I would receive a better explanation about quantum mechanics from a dog than communism from liberals
this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2025
127 points (97.0% liked)
Slop.
724 readers
467 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
At least if you get a dog to explain something to you, you get to give a cute pup a treat for trying his best and you might get to rub his belly afterward.
Furries will fr do anything for a treat...
Well, I happen to think most of those fur heads have boopable snoots, and the full suits look awfully hug shaped... the doggos are awfully common, but who I'd really like a hug from is one of the bears. I'll never get a real bear to cooperate with snuggles, but a furry in a bear suit just might... bears have no right to be as cute as they are.
Sorry, I only give boops if you can prove you've read Blackshirts and Reds
Dammit, even the cute fluffy animals are woke now! Guess I gotta read more theory...
Americans too.
Anytime someone says socialism and communism are different an angel dies.
And a gusano gets its wings
I'm so sick of this. I saw a quote recently about how the US not only makes people stupid, but arrogant about it. I think it was Kuame Ture
“Not only does the enemy make you ignorant…he makes you want to love ignorance and hate knowledge.”
That's it! Thanks
~~the United States is a nation of 330 million people~~
The United States is a nation of 330 million definitions of socialism
Fried squid attack 
You're telling me a shrimp fried this Democrat?
"If nobody is rich, but everyone's needs are met, what's the problem?"
-some dumbass i bet
I mean, that is what I want out of society. But I am not a Marxist-Leninist solely because socialism is the best system for the ordinary people and morally right, I am a Marxist-Leninist because I believe in dialectical materialism as an accurate worldview and analysis tool, and I believe that communism is inevitable societal progress. So... yeah. There's a reason we want genuine progress towards socialism, not just regulating capitalism to put a lower and upper limit on the wealth disparity. As much as efforts to do that can reduce active harm and save lives in the short term.
but.. how do you guarantee no one's poor? you eventually have to confront the rich..
The graphic answers this already! Nobody should be poor doesn’t mean nobody will be poor!
It’s kinda like when Hillary Clinton was saying “No bank is too big to fail!” and pretending like that wasn’t just an affirmation of her view that “since no bank is too big to fail, no action is necessary.”
Liberals genuinely believe certain people are just poor cause they feel like it
facilitating access to the to the opportunity of not being poor
Srsly, have you even tried simply not being poor? It worked for me from birth and I didn't even have to put in any effort!
this is why i don't trust usians / westerners who say they are socialists
Socialism is when they fill in the potholes in the road
Oh hey look no mention of class whatsoever
"What about the rich and poor classes?" :smug 
CAPITALISM - ANYBODY COULD BECOME RICH, BUT ONLY A FEW PEOPLE AT A TIME AND MOSTLY ONLY IF YOU COME FROM A FAMILY THAT WAS ALREADY RICH
Communism = Evil Socialism according to people who don't read.
Socialists who had Good Intentions but Went Too Far, like freakin Killmomger
My mom saw some people standing outside of a WWII memorial the other day, with signs saying "they died for a free country, now we have a socialist country instead", which is the kind of Red Scare bullshit I expect out of the US, not my own country.
Way too many people do not know what socialism is. Or what communism is. They just call everything they don't like communism. Or unironically use the "Socialism is when the government does stuff" line.
For liberals everything is about things one owns. How dare you complain about your boss/overlord walking all over you, you filthy commie, you own your toothbrush.
If you like your means of production, you can keep them
No theory?
nobody can become rich under capitalism. you can be born rich. you can remain rich. like 3 people have ever “become” rich
Dae le market socialism 
Ouch that hurt to type
Well, the first two are economic systems that differ who can own the means of production (and with that by usual extension the products).
The last one is how that economy (production and/or results) gets used.
Eg feudalism would be the third alternative on the same comparable lines (tho bcs of historical reasons usually reserved to the production factor of land).
It's good to educate ppl, I'm just saying that equating those three along the same axis is what muddied the waters in the first place (and why we don't seem to differentiate them - it's the reasons why along those same bunch of words ppl will use 'fascism' or 'dictatorship' or even 'democracy' as alternatives for some reason, even those are systems of governance).
Both socialism and communism are different relations of production (socialism being more of a spectrum and communism being more definite), and in both cases how production gets used is a matter of democratic decision.
How does communism (communal ownership) define what is produced?
Or capitalism or feudalism for that matter.
You could have democratic production under feudalism, but the land is owned by one person.
And you can have dictatorship in communism dictating what is produced (without any private capital, so not capitalism).
Afaik socialism (or even eg militarism?) is a direction taken or affected by government policy, not by ownership.
That's why I said that propaganda deliberately mixed our understanding of economic systems & systems of government.
Because ownership is a meaningless concept when it's separated from control. The Marxist theory of socialist production is centered on ending the "anarchy of production" of market systems by means of having a deliberately organized economy where everything is made for its use rather than profit, the particulars of which are decided by the popular will and groups delegated to by the popular will to figure out certain aspects (e.g. handling local problems, matters that can really only be understood by experts, etc.)
You can't meet a Marxist definition of communism in a bureaucratic state (the closest thing to autocracy that exists in the real world) because the bureaucracy, by virtue of controlling production, is its own class with its own class interests and class antagonisms with the underclass.
I completely agree!
What I was saying was way more basic/direct/strict meaning, but if you extend the terms into systems like that (I would say that eg Marxism is a bit wider term than communism), which makes sense, you are completely right.