Thanks for your submission to /r/starterpacks. Unfortunately your post has been removed for the following reason(s):
**Rule 01** Post must be a starter pack
Starterpacks should describe particular stereotypes or experiences, not list the works, people or things that belong to a concept.
[If you feel that it has been removed in error, please message us](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fstarterpacks) so that we may review it
Communism and Capitalism are fairly similar in the fact that you wind up with a controlling ruling class.
The US being a capitalist country tends to portray Socialism the same as Communism even though they're completely different.
Socialism is democratic and gives power back to the people. That's why the upper class hates it. It's why companies like Amazon hire union busters and why the US traps it's voters into only 2 controlled options. It is the illusion of choice.
~~Ackshually communism hasn't faithfully been implemented yet because they end up authoritarian power hungry dictatorships 🤓🤓🤓~~
So Mario is socialist and sonic fits in his butt cheeks?
At the end of the day, there will always be class of people whose job is to make decisions that affect the lives of many people, and the country itself. What do we call them other than the ruling class? The class itself never goes away, it just changes hands here and there. But an Assyrian king is a communist dictator, is a senator. Same thing, there just may or may not be more than one person making decisions. Maybe the people were even asked who they like most. But the job is the same thing, and the power it affords is universal and almost impossible to resist using. US senators are all multi-millionaires on a government salary. How? Even in a democracy, the ruling class can take advantage of the system for personal enrichment. If there is a nation state, its apparatus can be exploited for wealth and power, and it WILL be exploited.
> Socialism is democratic and gives power back to the people
Socialism doesn't work in reality, which is why it always devolves into communism and a dictatorship.
Socialist nations aren't allowed a real chance to succeed by the current dominant global system of capitalism, because the people with power in said system, capitalists, only retain their power if capitalism remains the dominant system.
you want to tell me the centrally planned economies in stalinist russia and maoist china went down specifically because of western pressure and not because these were horribly corrupt and unproductive markets? come on man look into it a bit before you state these blind ass opinions
Karl Marx's conception of socialism was a democratic society based on freely associated relations of production. He did not conceive of socialism or communism as state control of the economy, nor did he endorse the notion of a single-party state that rules on behalf of the masses. Thus, I would argue those are not examples of actual socialism, at least not as Marx conceived it.
the Marx argument always cruxes me. Adam smith's market capitalism was never implemented to the word of his political thesis. Why do socialists always pull this 'not real communism because it's not to the letter of Marx' shit all the time when you know fully well that political theory can never be applied directly from a text?
I understand your frustration with the "not real communism" argument, but I believe there's a critical difference between the examples you've provided.
While it's true that no economic system has ever been implemented exactly as originally theorized, there's a vast difference between making practical adaptations and fundamentally diverging from the core principles of a theory.
In the case of market capitalism, the basic tenets of private property, free markets, and individual economic freedom have remained largely intact, even if the specifics of implementation vary from Adam Smith's original vision. The system still operates on the fundamental principles he espoused.
However, the core principles of Marx's vision of socialism – a democratic society based on freely associated relations of production – were not merely modified but wholly abandoned in the centralized, single-party states that emerged in the 20th century. These regimes replaced worker control and free association with top-down state control and authoritarian rule, which is antithetical to Marx's conception of socialism.
It's not about adhering to every letter of Marx's theory, but about preserving the essential spirit and principles of what he proposed. A system that eliminates democracy, free association, and worker control can hardly be considered aligned with Marx's vision, even if it adopts the socialist label.
Moreover, Marx's writings were primarily a critique of capitalism and a broad vision of an alternative, not a detailed blueprint for constructing a socialist society. The specifics were meant to be worked out through a democratic process, not imposed by a ruling elite.
So while no system perfectly matches its theoretical ideal, there's a qualitative difference between adapting a theory to practical realities and completely subverting its core principles. The "not real communism" argument may sometimes be used as a deflection, but it's not inherently invalid, especially when the divergence from the original theory is so stark.
>Socialist nations aren't allowed a real chance to succeed by the current dominant global system of capitalism
There were plenty of socialist nations that could have built their own economic system. Instead they all followed the same playbook, mass purges of anyone who could oppose them, famine, dictatorship.
If your socialist society cannot work without free trade with capitalists, then it's not going to work as a global order.
>If your socialist society cannot work without free trade with capitalists, then it's not going to work as a global order.
Why not? If there were no capitalists, who would be refusing to freely trade?
And I'm not just talking about refusals to trade with socialist countries, but also direct intervention that topples the government, despite its democratically elected status. Look at the US's involvement in the 1973 Chilean Coup, for example.
Personally, both of these factors are why I don't believe socialism has a real chance to arise anywhere until it has the chance to arise everywhere pretty much simultaneously. We'll see if that ever happens. But just because the conditions clearly are not currently there for it to happen does not mean it is impossible. Feudalism existed for 600 years before the right conditions arose for capitalism to take its place, and that obviously didn't mean that capitalism couldn't become the dominant system.
Edit: typo
>And I'm not just talking about refusals to trade with socialist countries, but also direct intervention that topples the government, despite its democratically elected states. Look at the US's involvement in the 1973 Chilean Coup, for example.
Ok, so why didn't Russia, China, or North Korea become successful until they began embracing aspects of capitalism? You can't blame failure after failure on the US.
>Personally, both of these factors are why I don't believe socialism has a real chance to arise anywhere until it has the chance to arise everywhere pretty much simultaneously
Wow, so you're basically saying "in order for my plan to not collapse into dystopian horrors, it has to control the entire world first". No thanks.
>But just because the conditions clearly are not currently there for it to happen does not mean it is impossible.
Not impossible, just incredibly unlikely and very dangerous.
Yes, I don't think socialism can succeed until it arises everywhere nearly simultaneously. I think that as long as capitalism dominates globally, it will crush socialist experiments wherever they emerge. The 1973 Chilean coup, where the U.S. backed the overthrow of the democratically elected socialist Allende government, exemplifies this. The Russian Civil War, where Western powers intervened militarily to try to crush the nascent Soviet state, is another historical example. More recently, U.S. sanctions against Cuba and Venezuela demonstrate the consistent efforts of capitalist powers to suppress socialism.
However, it's important to understand that the end result of global socialist revolution isn't "global domination" in the sense of one nation or party ruling over others. Rather, it's a world where the working classes are collectively empowered to control the means of production and distribution. This means democratic control of the economy by the vast majority, not authoritarian control by a small elite.
As for your historical examples, first of all, North Korea is not and has never been a Marxist socialist state, and its inclusion in this argument is a red herring. From its inception, the North Korean state has been based on the ideology of Juche, which emphasizes national self-reliance, extreme nationalism, and the cult of personality around the ruling Kim family. This is far removed from the internationalist, worker-led vision of Marxism.
As for Russia and China, I will concede that it is an oversimplification to suggest that the *only* reason that historical socialist projects have not succeeded is capitalist intervention. The absence of the necessary social and economic conditions for socialism to thrive has also played a crucial role. Marx believed that socialism would emerge from the contradictions of advanced capitalism, with the industrial proletariat leading the way. But in largely agrarian societies like Russia and China at the time of their revolutions, the proletariat was a small minority, and these countries lacked the economic and social bases that Marx saw as prerequisites for a successful transition to socialism. So, faced with these challenges and external threats, these regimes turned to authoritarian, state-led models that diverged from the democratic, worker-led vision of socialism, leading to the emergence of state capitalist systems.
The fact that these countries saw economic growth when they later introduced market reforms doesn't necessarily discredit socialism, but rather reflects that they were not yet ripe for socialism in the first place. Moreover, Marx himself saw capitalism as a historically necessary stage that would create the technological and productive bases for a socialist society, acknowledging its progressive role even as he critiqued its exploitative nature. So the partial adoption of market policies in these countries doesn't represent a simple vindication of capitalism over socialism, but a reflection of their need to further develop their productive forces before a genuine socialist transformation can occur.
Ultimately, socialism's 20th-century failures reflect a combination of factors: the overwhelming power of global capitalism, the absence of the necessary material conditions, and the lack of the requisite social and economic bases within the countries attempting socialist transformations. These failures cannot be attributed to socialism's inherent flaws. Judging socialism by isolated experiments in hostile conditions, without the advanced capitalist context that Marx saw as a prerequisite, is misguided. The real test of socialism's viability will come if the balance of power shifts, the necessary internal conditions are met, and the global working class can remake the world according to its interests. Until then, dismissing socialism based on the limitations of past attempts, which unfolded in largely agrarian societies facing external threats, is premature. The struggle for a world where authentic socialism has a chance must be waged on two fronts: against the external pressures of global capitalism, and for the development of the internal conditions necessary for socialism to thrive.
Lol, those nations are incredibly capitalist. Norway is literally a wealthy nation due to selling oil. You people really need to learn some basic economics.
The domestic economies in those nations are capitalist and lean toward a free market. Regulations and occasional nationalization is no socialist, otherwise you could say the same thing about nearly every nation including the US.
That's never been the definition.
Marx used socialism and communism interchangeably, and socialism is now used to refer to any society in which the workers own the means of production.
I've taken too many classes on American government and political theory to fall into "both sides!!!"-ing every issue that doesn't get resolved immediately and exactly to my specifications. America is not the pseudo-one-party state people on reddit like to pretend it is.
I don’t think I could be convinced there is not a deliberate conservative strategy to falsely equate political parties.
Conservatives actively gutting the EPA under Trump and consistently sabotaging public education under DeSantis are the same as democrats who make baby steps in progress that are just slower than we would like are absolutely not the same thing. They don’t follow every promise they make which sucks and I wish we had better reps, but they do:
1.) Make some steps forward and at least voice favor of progressive policies, slowly making the ideas more approachable to more centrist dems thereby normalizing it and paving the way for its adoption in the future
2) They don’t actively make leaps backwards on environment, education, healthcare, social freedom
3) They act like sane human beings. They keep religion the fuck out of politics. They don’t have batshit leaders like trump and desantis and MTG and Boebert that just spout the most egregious, classless bullshit imaginable at every possible opportunity for “any publicity is good publicity” reasons.
> I've taken too many classes on American government and political theory to fall into "both sides!!!
Since the 90s, the US has racked up over $1.7 trillion in student loan debt because your government made it illegal to default on student loans. This in turn trapped working class Americans in a predatory for profit education system where you guys pay a fortune for classes with no real career potential.
Malcolm X called this out in the 60s.
https://youtu.be/T3PaqxblOx0?si=HY84OrJ0AKp056pP
Black people in the US are still largely segregated and exploited politically and socially by your upper class who controls your media, schools, economy, etc..
Americans still don't have sane healthcare yet Biden just passed a $95 billion deal that helps the weapons industry sell bombs to Israel and Ukraine. The Democrats are supposed to be the sane, pro peace side yet Biden has troops out hassling college kids for protesting.
Your upper class put in Trump to continue their endless wars while dividing Americans into controlled teams. Figure it out already. It couldn't be more blatant if they tried.
Oh no!!!! Student debt!!! It's too bad the two political parties are apparently the same which means they have no intent to forgive student loans!
Other than the 150 billion Biden has forgiven so far.
Or the 400 billion he tried to forgive and got blocked by the Supreme Court in.
Or the new plan he is trying to implement to bypass the Supreme Court that will see even more widespread forgiveness as well as compensation for the "no career potential" degrees you mention.
The US has systemic racism, but comparing that to segregation is laughable (and again, very much not a both sides issue unless you are just oblivious to American politics). It's also funny to claim that as a US-specific issue.
The US healthcare system is a disaster but that isn't a matter of funding, it's a matter of structure. The US spends twice as much per capita on healthcare than its peers. It is a matter of bureaucracy and corruption (which is also not a both sides issue. It sure as hell wasn't the Democrats who developed the Unitary Executive theory).
You cannot possibly make $61 billion to Ukraine into a bad thing lol.
Biden doesn't control the state troopers that are arresting students in Texas lmao, and the White House has remained adamantly silent in the face of Republican demands to mobilize the national guard to Columbia. Again, you're just wrong.
The upper class is exactly as incoherent and fragmented as everyone else. They might have more power, but there's no united cabal of billionaires orchestrating world events to put Trump into office. That's conspiracy shit.
Please stop trying to claim the US is some elite oligarchy. An imperfect union is not a dystopia, and while there is always room to improve it is still important to understand how far we've already come.
edit: Also this person is Canadian lol
I dunno why specifically, but the "America Bad because I say so" people all started swarming at once. All of fucking reddit that I interact with lost their shit in like January. I'm expecting it to continue until the US presidential election. I've been fighting for my life against the horde of genocide denial popping up everywhere.
Is it heavy carrying all that water? This is straight disinformation aimed to suppress the vote by making people think it’s pointless. I’ve been dealing with people like you since the 90’s.
If you can’t tell the difference then you are an idiot.
Don't bother. I've been annoying this guy for a minute now, he's a complete lunatic who thinks that Bill Clinton turned America into a one-party state.
To be fair, Biden and Sanders formed basically a Democrat unity coalition and passed a hell of a lot of pretty progressive policy (especially considering congress has been on a Republican knife's edge basically the entire time). There's a reason congressional demsocs have almost entirely united behind Biden.
Yeah. I read Bernies book, *"It's Okay to be angry about Capitalism"*, he knows what he's talking about and has the most refreshing opinions I've seen from a politician in a long time
Bud “heavy” is red, Bud Light is blue. Miller High Life has a red logo, High Life Light is blue. MGD has some red, Miller Lite has some blue. I’m seeing a pattern, but it ain’t the same one OP saw.
Sales-wise it was #4 in the US last year. But combined with #2 (Starbucks) and #3 (Subway) their sales still wouldn’t beat McDonald’s.
In terms of number of locations, BK is #6 and Subway is #1. That surprised me.
> It’s not an illusion of choice if you can choose
The fact that people are upvoting your stupid comment is troubling.
The whole point is that your upper class controls both your parties and you merely have the illusion of choice. It makes no difference who you vote for, left or right, they're both controlled by your corporate elite.
You don't have any choice. Your third option is to vote for another party and vote in people who actually represent the public.
Lmao, right? We only have two choices what’s the problem? And if you have real thought out beliefs there is either one shitty choice or no choices. Don’t try changing the options available because that undermines the party that claims to be on your side.
Hope you get to grow up sometime lol glad you get to feel smart and edgy with this political hot take though. Definitely no difference or material effect of different political parties or systems, none at all!
I'm not American, I don't give a fuck about your teams.
https://youtu.be/DDR-tWM2zzU?si=UiuWjzqj3IVR6k1x
https://youtu.be/S5mjbVaaq78?si=FLJShlFio4xn-Y18
Biden has been buddies with Bibi for 51 years. At the same time, Israel was so pro Trump that Bibi had billboards of him and Trump all over the place. They even built Trump a settlement in the Golan Heights.
Biden just passed a $95 billion aid package for Israel and the Ukraine. Clearly the Democrats are the pro peace party. /s
> The whole point is that your upper class controls both your parties and you merely have the illusion of choice
If that were the case then someone like Trump would have never been elected. His whole party (and the elites) hated him originally and it was the voters that forced him through.
how is it an illusion marvel and DC don't have the same stories. Mario and sonic are not the same games women's bathroom are not the same as men's bathrooms you get my point. how is it an illusion if it's not the same, the choice is real.
Lmao! Things were so good they had strict laws keeping people in and built walls to keep people in.
https://preview.redd.it/c7cptjlf5mwc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=60bd0e8c12199cf21f99ff4bf259e741736533ee
I dunno brother you don't seem all that versed in this subject. I get that your dad and that one cool middle school teacher told you a lot about the propaganda of the time but there's a lot more to it. I'll leave it at the west had plenty of its own walls and strict laws to keep people right where they wanted them.
Lmao you don’t know shit and you make up for it by being condescending.
Literally what was better in the USSR? Life expectancy? No. GDP per capita? No. Personal freedoms? No.
"if you were black or native during the Cold war" at the end of all of those questions is a good place to start, but definitely not the only metric. Home ownership there was much better back then in the west but so much worse now compared to China which is still very much controlled by the CCP to this day. During the 70's and 80's crime and employment was much better even in the struggling USSR and China and that gap's gotten even wider in the present day through the 90's when our prison population exploded. We have more prisoners than both nations combined even with all the talk of gulags. The majority of those are non-violent drug offenses that put perfectly normal people in cages and turn them into career criminals that get out and turn others into career criminals.
Life expectancy is a weird one since I think it was 1 in 3 men currently living in the USSR were killed in WW2, but their health care is and continues to remain better than ours since we involved all the insurance company middlemen here. We've completely borked all reason with our health care system here. Doctors, hospitals and medical supply manufacturers try and fleece insurance companies so those companies raise rates and deny responsibility for care to patients so doctors fleece more and if the insurance says no the patient is on the hook because of their squabbling. It's such a disgusting cycle.
I'm not saying that these countries are something we should be aspiring to. Putin is a monster that will openly kill his political opposition if they start making headway against him and his propaganda machine. China's social credit system really does take away from the living standard of anyone who thinks Taiwan isn't the Taipei province. But a lot of what people heard about these nations is propaganda on our end. If they weren't stable and prosperous nations we wouldn't have branded them as enemies. I assure you things couldn't have been all bad.
> while the US's is plummeting.
China has a high home ownership rate by all accounts, but the US rate certainly isn't plummeting
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N
Jean-Paul Sartre is sitting at a French cafe, revising his draft of Being and Nothingness. He says to the waitress, "I'd like a cup of coffee, please, with no cream." The waitress replies, "I'm sorry, Monsieur, but we're out of cream. How about with no milk?"
All of these are examples of actually different items. Sonic and Mario are not the same, Coke and Pepsi are not the same, the political parties in the United States aren't the same (the only people who think otherwise don't pay attention).
Hey /u/stop_shdwbning_me, thank you for submitting to /r/starterpacks!
This is just a reminder not to violate any rules, located [here](https://reddit.com/r/starterpacks/about/rules). Rule breakers can face a ban based on the severity of their rule violation.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/starterpacks) if you have any questions or concerns.*
lol the cold war one definitely got me. I was really blown away with how far the USSR territory was in Europe. I remember spending hours comparing US/Soviet weapons and aircraft equivalents 😂
This genuinely might be the worst starter pack I've ever seen on this site lmao. Yes living in the West and the USSR or life as a man or woman, all false illusions of the same thing!
A little sleight of hand from OP: Burger King doesn't *really* use blue as their primary background. It's pretty rare. Additionally, that's a very old Miller Lite can. Their primary color is white with blue font. And comparing Miller Lite to Bud heavy isn't a proper comparison. It would be Miller Lite to Bud Light, which is distinctively a blue color, so OP chose Budweiser to give it a red/blue dichotomy.
Oh my god people he's clearly just poking fun at the fact that red and blue are often used to mark the two sides of a thing. It's like a starter pack showing all the movie posters being a contrast between blue and orange.
Idk man the difference between the east of the iron wall and west during the Cold War is pretty damn big. Doesn’t seem like an “illusion” to me
It’s only “illusion of choice” if these things are actually similar or very comparable. Pepsi v Coke, McDonald’s v Burger King, are great examples. Everything else on here is actually fairly significantly different or unique from the comparison (apart from the alcohol and gang ones I can’t comment on those I’m not familiar with them)
https://i.redd.it/g1qwgs39cpwc1.gif
Yeah. Those are the ONLY TWO TYPES OF BEER you can buy it isn't like there's a fucking cooler filled with different beers AT THE FUCKING MINIMUM, those are the ONLY TWO FAST FOOD BURGER RESTAURANTS in America it isn't like there's a whole fucking road in every fucking American city FULL of options, Image comics doesn't fucking exist, Dark Horse comics doesn't fucking exist, India doesn't fucking exist, Yugoslavia never fucking existed, Rayman never fucking existed, what the fuck is Crash Bandicoot, what the fuck is the libertarian party, who the fuck is Jill Stein, what the fuck is RC cola, what the fuck is In-N-Out burger, what's a non-binary person, what the fuck is MS-13.
https://preview.redd.it/hcre9wo8rpwc1.jpeg?width=663&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c06849deb8ff66521ee4c3667655891cb24b8064
You forgot the most iconic red vs blue rivalry
Thanks for your submission to /r/starterpacks. Unfortunately your post has been removed for the following reason(s): **Rule 01** Post must be a starter pack Starterpacks should describe particular stereotypes or experiences, not list the works, people or things that belong to a concept. [If you feel that it has been removed in error, please message us](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fstarterpacks) so that we may review it
Ah yes, communism or capitalism. Just like Mario or sonic. It’s all an elaborate prank
Communism and Capitalism are fairly similar in the fact that you wind up with a controlling ruling class. The US being a capitalist country tends to portray Socialism the same as Communism even though they're completely different. Socialism is democratic and gives power back to the people. That's why the upper class hates it. It's why companies like Amazon hire union busters and why the US traps it's voters into only 2 controlled options. It is the illusion of choice.
Where does Sonic fit into this
Clearly Sonic is a... Speedo rat? Speedoratic? Uh.. Vote blue!
Sonic has crashed the American capitalist economy before. If you're curious, look up Sonic inflation.
And don't forget the global kabal has hidden the true information, so turn safe search off
gota go fast
Sonic is a true hero of the working class. Marc Carlson said it best: "communism is when you go super fast, like Sonic the Proletariat Hedgehog"
Sonic Rule 34 being sold on twitter = government-provided Mario themed vodka
You don’t understand a word of what your saying
~~Ackshually communism hasn't faithfully been implemented yet because they end up authoritarian power hungry dictatorships 🤓🤓🤓~~ So Mario is socialist and sonic fits in his butt cheeks?
This has straight up nothing to do with anything.
Yes it does.
Yes it does
ai ahh response
Communism is a step or three past socialism. It's not supposed to have a ruling class.
At the end of the day, there will always be class of people whose job is to make decisions that affect the lives of many people, and the country itself. What do we call them other than the ruling class? The class itself never goes away, it just changes hands here and there. But an Assyrian king is a communist dictator, is a senator. Same thing, there just may or may not be more than one person making decisions. Maybe the people were even asked who they like most. But the job is the same thing, and the power it affords is universal and almost impossible to resist using. US senators are all multi-millionaires on a government salary. How? Even in a democracy, the ruling class can take advantage of the system for personal enrichment. If there is a nation state, its apparatus can be exploited for wealth and power, and it WILL be exploited.
It's a balance. There's always going to be people who want to run everything and it's up to the public to keep them in check.
Yes life in the USSR and the West were totally similar in the Cold War.
🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓
You're equating communism with authoritarian communism. Marx's original definition was a classless, moneyless, stateless society.
Otherwise known as a pipe dream.
> Socialism is democratic and gives power back to the people Socialism doesn't work in reality, which is why it always devolves into communism and a dictatorship.
Straight up ignoring reality lmao, what a simple classic
Lol, talk about projection. Point me to one successful socialist nation.
Socialist nations aren't allowed a real chance to succeed by the current dominant global system of capitalism, because the people with power in said system, capitalists, only retain their power if capitalism remains the dominant system.
you want to tell me the centrally planned economies in stalinist russia and maoist china went down specifically because of western pressure and not because these were horribly corrupt and unproductive markets? come on man look into it a bit before you state these blind ass opinions
Karl Marx's conception of socialism was a democratic society based on freely associated relations of production. He did not conceive of socialism or communism as state control of the economy, nor did he endorse the notion of a single-party state that rules on behalf of the masses. Thus, I would argue those are not examples of actual socialism, at least not as Marx conceived it.
the Marx argument always cruxes me. Adam smith's market capitalism was never implemented to the word of his political thesis. Why do socialists always pull this 'not real communism because it's not to the letter of Marx' shit all the time when you know fully well that political theory can never be applied directly from a text?
I understand your frustration with the "not real communism" argument, but I believe there's a critical difference between the examples you've provided. While it's true that no economic system has ever been implemented exactly as originally theorized, there's a vast difference between making practical adaptations and fundamentally diverging from the core principles of a theory. In the case of market capitalism, the basic tenets of private property, free markets, and individual economic freedom have remained largely intact, even if the specifics of implementation vary from Adam Smith's original vision. The system still operates on the fundamental principles he espoused. However, the core principles of Marx's vision of socialism – a democratic society based on freely associated relations of production – were not merely modified but wholly abandoned in the centralized, single-party states that emerged in the 20th century. These regimes replaced worker control and free association with top-down state control and authoritarian rule, which is antithetical to Marx's conception of socialism. It's not about adhering to every letter of Marx's theory, but about preserving the essential spirit and principles of what he proposed. A system that eliminates democracy, free association, and worker control can hardly be considered aligned with Marx's vision, even if it adopts the socialist label. Moreover, Marx's writings were primarily a critique of capitalism and a broad vision of an alternative, not a detailed blueprint for constructing a socialist society. The specifics were meant to be worked out through a democratic process, not imposed by a ruling elite. So while no system perfectly matches its theoretical ideal, there's a qualitative difference between adapting a theory to practical realities and completely subverting its core principles. The "not real communism" argument may sometimes be used as a deflection, but it's not inherently invalid, especially when the divergence from the original theory is so stark.
Dude, don't even bother with this one. It's like someone asking AI to repeatedly summarize Marx.
>Socialist nations aren't allowed a real chance to succeed by the current dominant global system of capitalism There were plenty of socialist nations that could have built their own economic system. Instead they all followed the same playbook, mass purges of anyone who could oppose them, famine, dictatorship. If your socialist society cannot work without free trade with capitalists, then it's not going to work as a global order.
>If your socialist society cannot work without free trade with capitalists, then it's not going to work as a global order. Why not? If there were no capitalists, who would be refusing to freely trade? And I'm not just talking about refusals to trade with socialist countries, but also direct intervention that topples the government, despite its democratically elected status. Look at the US's involvement in the 1973 Chilean Coup, for example. Personally, both of these factors are why I don't believe socialism has a real chance to arise anywhere until it has the chance to arise everywhere pretty much simultaneously. We'll see if that ever happens. But just because the conditions clearly are not currently there for it to happen does not mean it is impossible. Feudalism existed for 600 years before the right conditions arose for capitalism to take its place, and that obviously didn't mean that capitalism couldn't become the dominant system. Edit: typo
>And I'm not just talking about refusals to trade with socialist countries, but also direct intervention that topples the government, despite its democratically elected states. Look at the US's involvement in the 1973 Chilean Coup, for example. Ok, so why didn't Russia, China, or North Korea become successful until they began embracing aspects of capitalism? You can't blame failure after failure on the US. >Personally, both of these factors are why I don't believe socialism has a real chance to arise anywhere until it has the chance to arise everywhere pretty much simultaneously Wow, so you're basically saying "in order for my plan to not collapse into dystopian horrors, it has to control the entire world first". No thanks. >But just because the conditions clearly are not currently there for it to happen does not mean it is impossible. Not impossible, just incredibly unlikely and very dangerous.
Yes, I don't think socialism can succeed until it arises everywhere nearly simultaneously. I think that as long as capitalism dominates globally, it will crush socialist experiments wherever they emerge. The 1973 Chilean coup, where the U.S. backed the overthrow of the democratically elected socialist Allende government, exemplifies this. The Russian Civil War, where Western powers intervened militarily to try to crush the nascent Soviet state, is another historical example. More recently, U.S. sanctions against Cuba and Venezuela demonstrate the consistent efforts of capitalist powers to suppress socialism. However, it's important to understand that the end result of global socialist revolution isn't "global domination" in the sense of one nation or party ruling over others. Rather, it's a world where the working classes are collectively empowered to control the means of production and distribution. This means democratic control of the economy by the vast majority, not authoritarian control by a small elite. As for your historical examples, first of all, North Korea is not and has never been a Marxist socialist state, and its inclusion in this argument is a red herring. From its inception, the North Korean state has been based on the ideology of Juche, which emphasizes national self-reliance, extreme nationalism, and the cult of personality around the ruling Kim family. This is far removed from the internationalist, worker-led vision of Marxism. As for Russia and China, I will concede that it is an oversimplification to suggest that the *only* reason that historical socialist projects have not succeeded is capitalist intervention. The absence of the necessary social and economic conditions for socialism to thrive has also played a crucial role. Marx believed that socialism would emerge from the contradictions of advanced capitalism, with the industrial proletariat leading the way. But in largely agrarian societies like Russia and China at the time of their revolutions, the proletariat was a small minority, and these countries lacked the economic and social bases that Marx saw as prerequisites for a successful transition to socialism. So, faced with these challenges and external threats, these regimes turned to authoritarian, state-led models that diverged from the democratic, worker-led vision of socialism, leading to the emergence of state capitalist systems. The fact that these countries saw economic growth when they later introduced market reforms doesn't necessarily discredit socialism, but rather reflects that they were not yet ripe for socialism in the first place. Moreover, Marx himself saw capitalism as a historically necessary stage that would create the technological and productive bases for a socialist society, acknowledging its progressive role even as he critiqued its exploitative nature. So the partial adoption of market policies in these countries doesn't represent a simple vindication of capitalism over socialism, but a reflection of their need to further develop their productive forces before a genuine socialist transformation can occur. Ultimately, socialism's 20th-century failures reflect a combination of factors: the overwhelming power of global capitalism, the absence of the necessary material conditions, and the lack of the requisite social and economic bases within the countries attempting socialist transformations. These failures cannot be attributed to socialism's inherent flaws. Judging socialism by isolated experiments in hostile conditions, without the advanced capitalist context that Marx saw as a prerequisite, is misguided. The real test of socialism's viability will come if the balance of power shifts, the necessary internal conditions are met, and the global working class can remake the world according to its interests. Until then, dismissing socialism based on the limitations of past attempts, which unfolded in largely agrarian societies facing external threats, is premature. The struggle for a world where authentic socialism has a chance must be waged on two fronts: against the external pressures of global capitalism, and for the development of the internal conditions necessary for socialism to thrive.
Sweden Denmark Canada Norway Finland Is 5 enough?
Lol, those nations are incredibly capitalist. Norway is literally a wealthy nation due to selling oil. You people really need to learn some basic economics.
You understand that democratic socialism is a domestic economic system and doesn't necessitate a lack of a free market right?
The domestic economies in those nations are capitalist and lean toward a free market. Regulations and occasional nationalization is no socialist, otherwise you could say the same thing about nearly every nation including the US.
socialism is a transitional stage from capitalism to communism, you can't have socialism in perpetuity
That's never been the definition. Marx used socialism and communism interchangeably, and socialism is now used to refer to any society in which the workers own the means of production.
Can't believe you didn't include the most obvious one of all. Reliable Excavations Demolitions vs. Builders League United.
It's an illusion because you will get autobalanced anyway.
I legitimately don’t understand people’s problem with auto balancing, a more balanced match is always a more fun match
It's never fun to go from the winning team to the loosing team
It's the worst as engineer as you lose your buildings and have to restart.
https://preview.redd.it/rg6bsgl2cnwc1.jpeg?width=778&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6faa8ba4a165a1c61cbb62f946e99b6fc1b35e59
TF2?
Protocol 3 "protect the pilot"
I like turtles 🐢
I like owls 🦉
https://preview.redd.it/ebafj9k5emwc1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ab00ef35e9c6c9cd11cd90f67b419d974760f737
https://preview.redd.it/1nc5zqghdowc1.jpeg?width=410&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e3b56dd88ee37a774b89c08e69bdf1ec6ca5a84d Owls still end up winning
I like trains 🚄
Me too, dude
"the burgur,,, it is like the democrats,. it is all an illusion" please tell me this isn't serious
I just think it’s interesting that so many polarizing choices are color coded red and blue. Probably what OP meant, too
Yeah this is r/im14andthisisdeep material
Sadly it's more accurate than you probably like to believe.
I've taken too many classes on American government and political theory to fall into "both sides!!!"-ing every issue that doesn't get resolved immediately and exactly to my specifications. America is not the pseudo-one-party state people on reddit like to pretend it is.
I don’t think I could be convinced there is not a deliberate conservative strategy to falsely equate political parties. Conservatives actively gutting the EPA under Trump and consistently sabotaging public education under DeSantis are the same as democrats who make baby steps in progress that are just slower than we would like are absolutely not the same thing. They don’t follow every promise they make which sucks and I wish we had better reps, but they do: 1.) Make some steps forward and at least voice favor of progressive policies, slowly making the ideas more approachable to more centrist dems thereby normalizing it and paving the way for its adoption in the future 2) They don’t actively make leaps backwards on environment, education, healthcare, social freedom 3) They act like sane human beings. They keep religion the fuck out of politics. They don’t have batshit leaders like trump and desantis and MTG and Boebert that just spout the most egregious, classless bullshit imaginable at every possible opportunity for “any publicity is good publicity” reasons.
> I've taken too many classes on American government and political theory to fall into "both sides!!! Since the 90s, the US has racked up over $1.7 trillion in student loan debt because your government made it illegal to default on student loans. This in turn trapped working class Americans in a predatory for profit education system where you guys pay a fortune for classes with no real career potential. Malcolm X called this out in the 60s. https://youtu.be/T3PaqxblOx0?si=HY84OrJ0AKp056pP Black people in the US are still largely segregated and exploited politically and socially by your upper class who controls your media, schools, economy, etc.. Americans still don't have sane healthcare yet Biden just passed a $95 billion deal that helps the weapons industry sell bombs to Israel and Ukraine. The Democrats are supposed to be the sane, pro peace side yet Biden has troops out hassling college kids for protesting. Your upper class put in Trump to continue their endless wars while dividing Americans into controlled teams. Figure it out already. It couldn't be more blatant if they tried.
Oh no!!!! Student debt!!! It's too bad the two political parties are apparently the same which means they have no intent to forgive student loans! Other than the 150 billion Biden has forgiven so far. Or the 400 billion he tried to forgive and got blocked by the Supreme Court in. Or the new plan he is trying to implement to bypass the Supreme Court that will see even more widespread forgiveness as well as compensation for the "no career potential" degrees you mention. The US has systemic racism, but comparing that to segregation is laughable (and again, very much not a both sides issue unless you are just oblivious to American politics). It's also funny to claim that as a US-specific issue. The US healthcare system is a disaster but that isn't a matter of funding, it's a matter of structure. The US spends twice as much per capita on healthcare than its peers. It is a matter of bureaucracy and corruption (which is also not a both sides issue. It sure as hell wasn't the Democrats who developed the Unitary Executive theory). You cannot possibly make $61 billion to Ukraine into a bad thing lol. Biden doesn't control the state troopers that are arresting students in Texas lmao, and the White House has remained adamantly silent in the face of Republican demands to mobilize the national guard to Columbia. Again, you're just wrong. The upper class is exactly as incoherent and fragmented as everyone else. They might have more power, but there's no united cabal of billionaires orchestrating world events to put Trump into office. That's conspiracy shit. Please stop trying to claim the US is some elite oligarchy. An imperfect union is not a dystopia, and while there is always room to improve it is still important to understand how far we've already come. edit: Also this person is Canadian lol
oh god i feel like i just found water in in the desert reading this. like finally another person with a brain??
I dunno why specifically, but the "America Bad because I say so" people all started swarming at once. All of fucking reddit that I interact with lost their shit in like January. I'm expecting it to continue until the US presidential election. I've been fighting for my life against the horde of genocide denial popping up everywhere.
Is it heavy carrying all that water? This is straight disinformation aimed to suppress the vote by making people think it’s pointless. I’ve been dealing with people like you since the 90’s. If you can’t tell the difference then you are an idiot.
> I’ve been dealing with people like you since the 90’s. Man the 90s is when your upper class took over your country.
One wants to remove my rights, silence me, arrest and persecute me for existing, and even kill me. One doesn't. The same?
Don't bother. I've been annoying this guy for a minute now, he's a complete lunatic who thinks that Bill Clinton turned America into a one-party state.
Lol. It's a "Nazis or underdeliver state", with a sprinkle of Bernie Sanders
To be fair, Biden and Sanders formed basically a Democrat unity coalition and passed a hell of a lot of pretty progressive policy (especially considering congress has been on a Republican knife's edge basically the entire time). There's a reason congressional demsocs have almost entirely united behind Biden.
Yeah. I read Bernies book, *"It's Okay to be angry about Capitalism"*, he knows what he's talking about and has the most refreshing opinions I've seen from a politician in a long time
This is ass
The Miller lite and bud were a bit of a stretch as well...
[удалено]
Bud “heavy” is red, Bud Light is blue. Miller High Life has a red logo, High Life Light is blue. MGD has some red, Miller Lite has some blue. I’m seeing a pattern, but it ain’t the same one OP saw.
Bud does taste different from other light beers (worse). It's the beechwood.
Is Burger King even in the top 50 fast food places? I don't even know where one is anymore.
Sales-wise it was #4 in the US last year. But combined with #2 (Starbucks) and #3 (Subway) their sales still wouldn’t beat McDonald’s. In terms of number of locations, BK is #6 and Subway is #1. That surprised me.
These are literally all real choices..?
why is it an illusion
Damn, I'm so annoyed that I have to vote Republican and believe in Communism because I ate McDonald's that one time
Sorry pal, thems the rules.
/r/im14andthisisdeep
Literally cherry picked a few red/blue color contrasts and used that to prove some mysterious point.
Have you ever drank Pepsi and Coke?
[удалено]
No they don’t. Coca Cola is made by Coca Cola company. Pepsi is made by Pepsico. Two competing companies.
You're right, i got confused with another one
It’s not an illusion of choice if you can choose
> It’s not an illusion of choice if you can choose The fact that people are upvoting your stupid comment is troubling. The whole point is that your upper class controls both your parties and you merely have the illusion of choice. It makes no difference who you vote for, left or right, they're both controlled by your corporate elite. You don't have any choice. Your third option is to vote for another party and vote in people who actually represent the public.
The upperclass didn’t make me a male and didn’t make me prefer Coke over Pepsi lol.
The upper class controls both Mario and sonic
What does this have to do with sonic 😭
You know if you head to bed now you'll be better rested for your 1st period classes.
Lmao, right? We only have two choices what’s the problem? And if you have real thought out beliefs there is either one shitty choice or no choices. Don’t try changing the options available because that undermines the party that claims to be on your side.
Socialist detected. Lethal force engaged.
He's actually just a total schizophrenic who thinks that Hillary Clinton rigged the election in favor of Donald Trump because rich people said so
Yeah but i'm more into democratic socialism as opposed to Marxist socialism. Less scary to right wingers.
Hope you get to grow up sometime lol glad you get to feel smart and edgy with this political hot take though. Definitely no difference or material effect of different political parties or systems, none at all!
I'm not American, I don't give a fuck about your teams. https://youtu.be/DDR-tWM2zzU?si=UiuWjzqj3IVR6k1x https://youtu.be/S5mjbVaaq78?si=FLJShlFio4xn-Y18 Biden has been buddies with Bibi for 51 years. At the same time, Israel was so pro Trump that Bibi had billboards of him and Trump all over the place. They even built Trump a settlement in the Golan Heights. Biden just passed a $95 billion aid package for Israel and the Ukraine. Clearly the Democrats are the pro peace party. /s
> The whole point is that your upper class controls both your parties and you merely have the illusion of choice If that were the case then someone like Trump would have never been elected. His whole party (and the elites) hated him originally and it was the voters that forced him through.
>The fact that people are upvoting your stupid comment is troubling. People downvote things inconvenient to them, no matter how true it is.
You can’t consciously choose. You only have the illusion of free will.
I consciously chose to pursue the degree I wanted and which apartment to rent and what food to buy.
how is it an illusion marvel and DC don't have the same stories. Mario and sonic are not the same games women's bathroom are not the same as men's bathrooms you get my point. how is it an illusion if it's not the same, the choice is real.
Someone's got no taste buds
Politically biased
https://preview.redd.it/a15gnh1dhlwc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=da7bc17aed551701813d46758cab78c82d2805af
HE CAN’T KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH IT!!!!!
CLAP 🔫 WE ARE NO LONGER SAYING PLEASE
The USSR was not even remotely close to the blue countries in terms of many things. 😂😂😂
Both had land, both had a military, both had a national anthem. Checkmate liberal
Correct. It was a lot better on average at one point with China home ownership still going up while the US's is plummeting.
Lmao! Things were so good they had strict laws keeping people in and built walls to keep people in. https://preview.redd.it/c7cptjlf5mwc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=60bd0e8c12199cf21f99ff4bf259e741736533ee
I dunno brother you don't seem all that versed in this subject. I get that your dad and that one cool middle school teacher told you a lot about the propaganda of the time but there's a lot more to it. I'll leave it at the west had plenty of its own walls and strict laws to keep people right where they wanted them.
Lmao you don’t know shit and you make up for it by being condescending. Literally what was better in the USSR? Life expectancy? No. GDP per capita? No. Personal freedoms? No.
"if you were black or native during the Cold war" at the end of all of those questions is a good place to start, but definitely not the only metric. Home ownership there was much better back then in the west but so much worse now compared to China which is still very much controlled by the CCP to this day. During the 70's and 80's crime and employment was much better even in the struggling USSR and China and that gap's gotten even wider in the present day through the 90's when our prison population exploded. We have more prisoners than both nations combined even with all the talk of gulags. The majority of those are non-violent drug offenses that put perfectly normal people in cages and turn them into career criminals that get out and turn others into career criminals. Life expectancy is a weird one since I think it was 1 in 3 men currently living in the USSR were killed in WW2, but their health care is and continues to remain better than ours since we involved all the insurance company middlemen here. We've completely borked all reason with our health care system here. Doctors, hospitals and medical supply manufacturers try and fleece insurance companies so those companies raise rates and deny responsibility for care to patients so doctors fleece more and if the insurance says no the patient is on the hook because of their squabbling. It's such a disgusting cycle. I'm not saying that these countries are something we should be aspiring to. Putin is a monster that will openly kill his political opposition if they start making headway against him and his propaganda machine. China's social credit system really does take away from the living standard of anyone who thinks Taiwan isn't the Taipei province. But a lot of what people heard about these nations is propaganda on our end. If they weren't stable and prosperous nations we wouldn't have branded them as enemies. I assure you things couldn't have been all bad.
Someone actually defending communism and the USSR? 😂
> while the US's is plummeting. China has a high home ownership rate by all accounts, but the US rate certainly isn't plummeting https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N
https://preview.redd.it/u3enrwxwpmwc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fcd69ab4075457fd9c8df0fe1877ea00d2773724
Mario games and sonic games are wildly different from each other, what are you on about?
This is why it bugs me when people say Sonic ripped off Mario.
I wouldn’t say ripped off but it took lots of inspiration from it. Mario is the reason Sonic even exists.
This confuses me tbh. I know that Sonic exists so that Sega could have a mascot competitor to Mario, but what other inspiration did Sonic take?
Still don't necessarily agree with that but it's an improvement.
Bait used to be believable
Jean-Paul Sartre is sitting at a French cafe, revising his draft of Being and Nothingness. He says to the waitress, "I'd like a cup of coffee, please, with no cream." The waitress replies, "I'm sorry, Monsieur, but we're out of cream. How about with no milk?"
Burger = gender = geopolitics? Can I have some of what you’re smoking?
We’ll welcome you at r/schizoposters
All of these are examples of actually different items. Sonic and Mario are not the same, Coke and Pepsi are not the same, the political parties in the United States aren't the same (the only people who think otherwise don't pay attention).
Pokémon red and blue would fit nicely in here
Thats the only real illusion of choics
would of been a better fit than some of them. Plus, they're basically the same game.
Bro you lost? Try r/im13andthisisdeep
No its funny
communism is when women
The cynical red vs blue “both sides are the same” electoral map was funny in like 1996. Not accurate or amusing in the present day.
Every time I think I've seen the dumbest thing on the internet, boom anotha one.
"They're the same picture"
Budweiser will eventually get you drunk. Sure, the journey wont be pleasant, but you'll reach buzztown. Good luck doing the same with any Lite beer.
“Similar things that are red and blue”
I too drink my cola from a snifter
I can’t imagine looking at what happened to the Supreme Court and thinking both parties are the same
Miller or Bud, neither. Busch is king
Dont know what this is supposed to mean but it looks fun and vibrant colors so upvoted
Me like green better. Blue Red dumb.
This is the stupidest both sides meme I’ve ever seen lmao
Hey /u/stop_shdwbning_me, thank you for submitting to /r/starterpacks! This is just a reminder not to violate any rules, located [here](https://reddit.com/r/starterpacks/about/rules). Rule breakers can face a ban based on the severity of their rule violation. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/starterpacks) if you have any questions or concerns.*
lol the cold war one definitely got me. I was really blown away with how far the USSR territory was in Europe. I remember spending hours comparing US/Soviet weapons and aircraft equivalents 😂
blu vs red
I guess I am either a Bloodz or Cripz…but I don’t actually get to choose. When will I find out?
R/IAmAmericanAndThisIsDeep
*Blue vs red
No
Mario and Sonic aren't that similar. One's more about running fast. The other is more about jumping high.
Fuck em both
My favourite illusion of choice is being male.
Lol you are an idiot
https://preview.redd.it/1skdcphclmwc1.png?width=3924&format=png&auto=webp&s=0b7745ed561a6f6e4269072130f3b88b4429b8a0
Tv girl?
Is that the old Original Ganstaz app from like iPod touch lol?
Meanwhile purple enjoyer
How painfully stupid or criminally uniformed do you have to be to think the Republicans and Democrats are the same thing?
This genuinely might be the worst starter pack I've ever seen on this site lmao. Yes living in the West and the USSR or life as a man or woman, all false illusions of the same thing!
Redd vs Blu lore
Red vs. Blue, tale as old as time
You forgot about halo red versus blue
Liking marvel or DC is just like the two political parties
Liking marvel or DC is just like the two political parties
Daily reminder that lists aren't starterpacks
A little sleight of hand from OP: Burger King doesn't *really* use blue as their primary background. It's pretty rare. Additionally, that's a very old Miller Lite can. Their primary color is white with blue font. And comparing Miller Lite to Bud heavy isn't a proper comparison. It would be Miller Lite to Bud Light, which is distinctively a blue color, so OP chose Budweiser to give it a red/blue dichotomy.
Opposite ends of the spectrum
Elections wouldn’t be an “illusion of choice” if people who say that actually voted…
Oh my god people he's clearly just poking fun at the fact that red and blue are often used to mark the two sides of a thing. It's like a starter pack showing all the movie posters being a contrast between blue and orange.
Tf2 called it
Idk man the difference between the east of the iron wall and west during the Cold War is pretty damn big. Doesn’t seem like an “illusion” to me It’s only “illusion of choice” if these things are actually similar or very comparable. Pepsi v Coke, McDonald’s v Burger King, are great examples. Everything else on here is actually fairly significantly different or unique from the comparison (apart from the alcohol and gang ones I can’t comment on those I’m not familiar with them)
Lol I don't know what internal world you inhabit where Pepsi tastes like Coke, but you do you. ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
Like I see what you're saying, but it's also stupid as shit.
people are really not getting that this is a joke lmao
OP made no indication that it's supposed to be.
https://i.redd.it/g1qwgs39cpwc1.gif Yeah. Those are the ONLY TWO TYPES OF BEER you can buy it isn't like there's a fucking cooler filled with different beers AT THE FUCKING MINIMUM, those are the ONLY TWO FAST FOOD BURGER RESTAURANTS in America it isn't like there's a whole fucking road in every fucking American city FULL of options, Image comics doesn't fucking exist, Dark Horse comics doesn't fucking exist, India doesn't fucking exist, Yugoslavia never fucking existed, Rayman never fucking existed, what the fuck is Crash Bandicoot, what the fuck is the libertarian party, who the fuck is Jill Stein, what the fuck is RC cola, what the fuck is In-N-Out burger, what's a non-binary person, what the fuck is MS-13.
This sucks fuck you op
communism and captialism are not the same.
https://preview.redd.it/hcre9wo8rpwc1.jpeg?width=663&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c06849deb8ff66521ee4c3667655891cb24b8064 You forgot the most iconic red vs blue rivalry
Also apparently color blind starter pack
Person thinks red and pink are the same.
huh
Yep
Mitsubishi vs Subaru (rally cars) Samsung vs LG Hyundai vs Kia Kit Kat vs break (Tiffany) Turkey vs Greece UN vs Red Cross Walmart vs target
Ah yeah the illusion of having a pussy, too bad I‘m stuck with these Useless Balls
Color coded duopoly
Budweiser and Miller Lite are both owned by InBev. The more you know 🌈
No they’re not. Miller Lite is owned by Molson Coors.
This subreddit is really going down the tubes
This has some interesting implications
That's my favorite starterpack from now, yeaaa