American try to care one iota for your fellow man or really anyone other than yourself challenge (impossible):
this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
755 points (99.0% liked)
Memes
48671 readers
2064 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 5 years ago
MODERATORS
During covid, going to a rural area in the US really got to me. The population is so individualistic / freedom-brained / "i do whatever I want all the time", that their grandmothers all dying meant nothing to them. I got mine keeps meaning smaller and smaller groups of people.
Which is surprising because up here in Canada, the socialism started with the farmers. And it's still going on with coop feed and grain silos and harvester sharing. Farmers don't let other farmers starve, in Canada.
That's not really Socialism, though. Segments of an economy cannot be Socialist or Capitalist by themselves, just like an arm cannot be a human. They all exist in their contexts. A worker cooperative in an economy dominated by private Capital is not an instance of Socialism, as it depends on the broader Capitalist system.
Socialism, in reality, refers to a broader economy where public ownership is primary, while Capitalism refers to a broader economy where private ownership is primary. All Socialist societies have had public and private Capital, and all Capitalist societies have had public and private Capital, it matters most which one has the power.
I recommend reading my post here on common problems people run into when determining Modes of Production.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I got mine keeps meaning smaller and smaller groups of people.
What does this mean?
USonians used to be more community-focused. In the 1950s polio was eradicated due to massive community efforts, showing that they were willing to do things to benefit their community.
Nowadays they won't even do the same to benefit their extended families.
I think all "western" countries were considerably more community focused in the past.
I am in rural Australia and as a kid our supermarket and hardware store were owned by farmer's co-ops and the hotel is still community owned and puts profits back into local sporting clubs. I have old pictures of some of the community fund raisers in the past and they looked extravagant for the time for a small population. Everyone pitched in to help building sporting clubs or other community facilities or to fight natural disasters. One old timer said they thought the US influence of entrepreneur clubs (Rotary, Lion's, Apex) was one of the first things to divide the community as the shop owners started to do their own thing separate from everyone else. We still have local community run child care, aged care and hospital. Increasingly people send their kids to the religious private school for social signalling despite the government school being well supported by parents and having excellent facilities and standards. The US funded churches are everywhere competing for customers and preaching hate and division. The disconnect between how people here naturally chose to build a community and what they are told to believe is interesting. I saw a silly old bugger wearing a MAGA hat last year. His parents probably came back from fighting fascists and helped build this community through unimaginable hard work and sacrifice.
back in the 80s my father worked for the largest state-owned bank here in brazil. apart from all benefits and a generally more laxed culture back then (goals were not that enforced, for example), the employees were more of a closely-knit community. they had clubs and were involved with it (the bank still has but not everyone care for it, the one we had in my home town was closed), organized a coop supermarket in state capitals during the inflation years, they were friends usually helped and cared for each other, the families used to visit each other, organized parties for the children, barbecues and the sort. in the 90s, there were heavy talks of privatization, people were fearful for their jobs, layoffs, and the bank generally had a lax policy on security at a time when robberies became more common. the employees slowly began to leave the bank and the few who were admitted to their places had not that culture, were more individualistic. it happened to other state owned companies, and all hell broke loose when many of them were actually privatized (state-level banks, telephone companies, electric distributors were among the most significant examples). now it seems that we're getting more and more individualistic and losing the meaning of community and society.
"Fuck you I got mine"
But when he says “smaller and smaller groups of people” does he mean that this kind of mentality isolates people to increasingly smaller groups?
It used to apply to different groups in the past.
Fuck you, my community got ours
Fuck you, my friend group got ours
Fuck you, my family got ours
And now we're finally at
Fuck you, I got mine
As the number of people who got theirs diminishes, "Fuck you I got mine" will eventually decay to just "Fuck you"
Dont you love individualism 🥰 /s
Lisa's only mistake was saying yes.
Just do every single thing in socialism, but change every single word. Call it Americanism.
Proletariat? No, just "worker".
Bourgeoisie? No, just "elites".
Capital? "Stuff". Like how in baseball they say a pitcher's got good "stuff". Use your human stuff.
Class Consciousness - "common sense".
Dialectical Materialism - Idk I'm still trying to figure out wtf that one means.
Dialectical materialism -> Scientific materialism to distinguish it from the common usage of the world "materialism"
Historically, this just doesn't work, and it even risks supporting PatSoc movements like the American Communist Party (not to be confused with the CPUSA), also known as "MAGA Communism." Essentially Imperialism combined with Communist aesthetics.
In the lead-up to the Russian Revolution, there was disagreement over the necessity of reading theory. The SRs thought it was unneccessary, and got in the way of unity. Lenin and the Bolsheviks disagreed, as theory informs correct practice. The SRs became a footnotez and the Bolsheviks succeeded in establishing the world's first Socialist state. One of Lenin's most fanous lines, from What is to be done? is "without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary practice."
As studying theory is necessary, people will realize you're repackaging Socialism. This will backfire, and people will realize they've been tricked. This will hurt the movement.
As for Dialectical Materialism, in a nutshell it's the philosophical backbone of Marxism. It's an analytical tool, focusing on studying material reality as it exists in context and in motion through time, as well as their contradictions. If you want an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list that will teach you the fundamentals, I have one here that I made.
Personally, I’ve strived to adhere to the Einstein quote:
If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.
This not only applies to theory but language in general. If you, an English speaker, wants to ally with someone who only speaks Mandarin, the two of you will need to figure out how to understand simple shared concepts first (“water”, “car”, “help”).
Theory is the same. I don’t think we should completely do away with the proper verbiage. But, I do think we need to figure out how to translate our message in more ways than just language— I’m talking cultural. Because, right now, there are a lot of working class Americans who have been convinced that capitalist exploitation is American culture.
load more comments
(13 replies)
load more comments
(10 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
about what youd expect for a country thats been the global epicenter for anticommunist propaganda.
I can't remember where I copied this from originally but it seems pertinent here
Americans are, of course, the most thoroughly and passively indoctrinated people on earth. they know next to nothing as a rule about their own history, or the histories of other nations, or the histories of the various social movements that have risen and fallen in the past, and they certainly know nothing of the complexities and contradictions comprised within words like ‘socialism’ and ‘capitalism.’
Chiefly, what they have been trained not to know or even suspect is that, in many ways, they enjoy far fewer freedoms, and suffer under a more intrusive centralized state, than do the citizens of countries with more vigorous social-democratic institutions.
This is is at once the most comic and most tragic aspect of the excitable alarm that talk of social democracy or democratic socialism can elicit on these shores.
An enormous number of Americans have been persuaded to believe that they are freer in the abstract than, say, Germans or Danes precisely because they possess far fewer freedoms in the concrete.
They are far more vulnerable to medical and financial crisis, far more likely to receive inadequate health coverage, far more prone too irreparable insolvency, far more unprotected against predatory creditors, far more subject to income inequality, and so forth, while effectively paying more in tax (when one figures in federal, state, local and sales taxes, and then compounds those by all the expenditures that in this country, as almost nowhere else, their taxes do not cover).
One might think that a people who once rebelled against the mightiest empire on earth on the principle of no taxation without representation would not meekly accept taxation without adequate government services.
But we accept what we have become used to, I suppose. Even so, one has to ask, what state apparatus in the “free” world could be more powerful and tyrannical than the one that taxes its citizens while providing no substantial civic benefits in return, solely in order to enrich a piratically overinflated military-industrial complex and to ease the tax burdens of the immensely wealthy.
Meanwhile, socialist Norway's wealth fund could maintain everyone's standard of living for 400 years if they stopped working right now.
norway isnt socialist. they just excel at exporting capitalism's issues to the third world.
load more comments
(38 replies)
Whenever people say this they neglect to point out that all the money came from selling oil.
They forget to point out that only dumbfuck yanks would consider Norway to be socialist, so the comment, in a meme community, is misleading from the get-go.
Norway funds its safety nets off of super-exploitation of the Global South, ie Imperialism. It is firmly Capitalist and in no way Socialist, private property is the primary driving aspect of Norway's economy, the higher standard of living comes from acting as a Landlord in country form.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Socialism in america only exists for corporations. "Hey bankers! Screwed up again? Here's more money to play with."
I appreciate the sentiment, but the public sector supporting the private is not "socialism." Socialism describes an economic formation where public ownership is primary in an economy, ie where large firms are publicly owned and controlled. Segments of an economy cannot be Socialist or Capitalist just like an arm cannot be a human, it can only exist in the context of the whole.
Socialism, in reality, refers to a broader economy where public ownership is primary, while Capitalism refers to a broader economy where private ownership is primary. All Socialist societies have had public and private Capital, and all Capitalist societies have had public and private Capital, it matters most which one has the power.
I recommend reading my post here on common problems people run into when determining Modes of Production.
load more comments
(7 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Wait, isn't socialism all about class solidarity? "Working together regardless of class to fight a common enemy" sounds more like nationalism where at the end the upper class profits most. Unless we are talking about a classless society but that's not "regardless of class" but "with no class distinction" which sounds very similar when I think about it.
Sounds more like social democracy, which can include managed capitalism and cooperation between workers and owners. To a degree.
Socialism is about making the working class the ruling class. It is explicitly about oppressing the bourgeois class, which is itself the current ruling class oppressing the working (and other) classes. The idea is to take the means of production and run it for ourselves rather than the profit of a class defined by merely owning factories, buildings, tools, etc.
The cartoon may be confused.
load more comments
(20 replies)
She's got a work on her sales pitch. "Probably one of the greatest... Oh it's not for you, it's more of a Shelbyville idea..."
Don't make me laugh, it's not socialism! it's bro-ism, 'cause, I got you bro. If everyone got their bros and we all bros then we can do absolutely anything bro!
"if we all work together regardless of class" collaborationism is bourgeoisie propaganda and is not tolerated here, Comrade. Please face the wall.
load more comments
(4 replies)
"All classes working together" as a counterpoint to socialism? Where have I heard of this before.....?
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›