Comradeship // Freechat

2115 readers

1 users here now

Talk about whatever, respecting the rules established by Lemmygrad. Failing to comply with the rules will grant you a few warnings, insisting on breaking them will grant you a beautiful shiny banwall.

A community for comrades to chat and talk about whatever doesn't fit other communities

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

felipeforte@lemmygrad.ml

-5

Socialism? Never heard of her 🤔 (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 year ago by birdcat@lemmy.ml to c/comradeship@lemmygrad.ml

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

For most people, "socialism" is an unclear or even scary word. This hinders the willingness to engage with its ideas or even consider it a viable alternative to whatever we are running on now.

So, (Sunday hot take!): why not stop using the word when advocating for "socialist ideas" or the "abandonment of capitalism" etc.?

My suggestion for a new term is Capitalism 2.0; because consider the following thought process:

feudalism –› capitalism –› socialism = nooo, they gonna steal my toothbrush😭

feudalism –› capitalism –› capitalism 2.0. = omg, finally things will get better! 🥳

That framing could alleviate negative associations and misconceptions and as a result make all kinds of people more open to exploring and questioning the principles and structures that are hindering global progress.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] birdcat@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I specifically said Feudalism –› Capitalism –› Socialism, which is, in my understanding, basic historical materialism. Even the communist manifesto states that "the bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part".

I do not and never said to aim to advocate to “develop capitalism further” (or reforming it, which I suspect some might have understood from my post). I meant overcome capitalism as in transition to the next mode of production. Which, in my understanding, can only be socialism; and not the negative side effects of overstretching capitalism beyond its functional or viable lifespan. Taking offense in me calling that “advancing capitalism” is an irrelevant misunderstanding.

Lastly, this is a post in the Freechat, labeled as a Sunday hot take. It was meant as a fun thing to think about. Maybe someone can use it as a conversation starter/developer when discussing such topics with people who are unfamiliar with or opposed to anything related to socialism. But whatever i guess.

[–] AlbigensianGhoul@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 year ago

There was no offence taken, I just stated why you are wrong. The correct "next step of capitalism" is it being relegated to history books and horror movies.

We have no "Sunday hot take" tradition here, so you'll have to excuse us for engaging with your joke as if a serious statement. With regards to "developing capitalism further", I see no other way to interpret "taking capitalism to the next step". Your original suggestion of "Capitalism 2.0" is already bad as others have explained better than I could, but by analogy your "next step" approach could also be applied to calling capitalism "Feudalism 2.0". If you don't like capitalism and want to abolish it, much like the bourgeoisie historically tried to do to European feudalism and all other social organisations that do not benefit them as a class, then taking your enemy's name for yourself is just counterproductive. Only liberals who want to decry imperialist capitalism as "not true capitalism", likely due to not knowing much about imperialism, call capitalism "Feudalism 2.0".

If the USA implements central planning it should not be called "Amazon 2.0". We are communists, some milder ones may prefer the euphemism of "socialist", but we shouldn't pretend we are different than what we are because our enemy has slandered us.