Edit: there are some minor mistakes with the title and the text in the meme indicating that it’s Lego, not duplo…
Don’t be pedantic; that’s what ruined Reddit in the first place.
You must log in or register to comment.
My son did a thing, so I said “Good job”. Then I punched him straight in the face. “This is a political metaphor!” I screamed into his sobbing bleeding broken nose.
Now my wife says she’s filling for divorce and taking the kids. I’ve been fired from my job for punching a coworker while saying “This is a political metaphor!” as well.
Just goes to show the state of free speech in this country. I swear to God, it’s the damned Communists in the schools. They ruined everything.
Don’t be pedantic; that’s what ruined Reddit in the first place.
It seems like everybody has a different theory about wHaT rUiNeD ReDdIt
What ruined Reddit is the enshitification.
As far as the people themselves go… A message board is a message board. People on Lemmy hate to hear it, but there is no difference between Reddit and Lemmy in that regard. Lemmy’s population is just smaller.
there is no difference between Reddit and Lemmy
There’s a number of large differences, in fact
A message board isn’t just a message board. Its content and how it’s designed and moderated determine what kinds of people use it. There’s a big difference between a message board like 4chan and a message board like reddit.
Because 4chan is like using the Internet by writing on papyrus.
Many things ruined Reddit. So many things.
Some even say Reddit ruined Reddit
It was a number of things
For the pedants complaining that they called the Duplos Legos:
LEGO is also the company name, and they make Duplo. Therefore Duplo are LEGO. If you ask for some Lego and get duplo, that’s on you for not requesting an itemized list of every single specific part you wanted by number. My pedentry knows no bounds. Bow down before me. 😤
I asked my dog about this, and she had some good points:
First of all, that’s Duplo not Lego.
Second of all, “the means to my Lego”?
Third of all, theft is theft under both capitalism and socialism. If he didn’t have an agreement with his dad that his dad could take half the tower, the dad is simply a thief. And theft is theft under both systems. And if his dad is supposed to represent “the government” or something, and taking half his stuff is supposed to be taxation, taxation happens under both capitalism and socialism.
Also, taxes aren’t theft. You get something in return for it, usually services and infrastructure. Dad didn’t give anything back for the stolen Duplos. Says my dog.
(Oh, and please tell your dog I said hi.)
You don’t so much get something in return for taxation as you already got it. Other people’s taxes created the conditions for your income and now part of your income goes to creating the conditions for other people to generate value and income. It’s a raw deal if you have a very high income and you only get infrastructure and healthcare back but realise that the whole foundation of your wealth, safety, and happiness comes from other people’s taxes and then hopefully it is okay to pay taxes to give those things to other people. Additionally, this is capitalism so if you have a lot of income it’s because other people are generating more value than their income. Society (and therefore taxes) is the only thing that can make that tolerable.
I mean, Dad, being a dad, did supply a lot of things to junior: food, shelter, security, etc. And, even though I think the libertarian idea that “taxation is theft” is really stupid, there is a slight point that it’s not a contract you sign or an arrangement you agree to, it’s an requirement forced on you based on where you’re born. If you don’t like those rules, you have to leave the country – and even leaving the country isn’t always something people are allowed to do.
In that, there’s a bit of a similar relationship with your parents. They impose rules on you that you can’t negotiate and can’t refuse. You’re stuck with them until you’re old enough to move out and live on your own.
Anyhow, the whole thing is kinda dumb. At least, that’s what my dog says. Oh, and she’d like for you to describe the smell of your dog’s butt for her, if you wouldn’t mind.
she’d like for you to describe the smell of your dog’s butt for her, if you wouldn’t mind.
Oh I don’t mind a bit. It smells, and I quote: “Woof woof grrr, arrf snort hmpf huffhuff.” Hope that helps.
Dog tax:
Taxation can basically be theft depending on the situation. Remember that paying taxes is compulsory and not inherently a form of mutual aid.
It’s possible to tex someone against their will and with no benefit offered to them.
Also, taxes aren’t theft. You get something in return for it,
I’m going to give you a candy while I rob you. Police hate this simple trick
Checkmate, socialists
Checkmate, police more like
That isn’t just any duplo, it’s specifically LEGO Duplo. That’s like calling Word word instead of Microsoft Word or Chrome chrome instead of Google Chrome. What about Linux instead of ***/Linux?
Your dog should take extra lessons. How’s it passing school not knowing this?
I mean those look like off brand building bricks. Also duplo is a lego brand
Duplo is just as much “Lego” as Technic is. They’re all made by the same company.
What does “means of production” even mean in 2025? It’s not like we all work in a shoe factory
What does “means of production” even mean
In Marxist theory, the “means of production” refers to the physical inputs used to produce goods and services. This includes things like tools, machinery, land, raw materials, and factories. Essentially, it’s everything needed to carry out the process of production, excluding human labo
I write software. The software that I write don’t belong to me. The owner of the software I write makes money of it. It’s “means of production” and the product itself simultaneously.
Something that produces goods or services.
For example, a musician makes music as a service, and that music can be made into a commodity either with a packaged good such as a book of sheet music or a method of storing the music (a file or disc), or you can sell tickets to hear the music.
Im a condo superintendent, so I don’t really produce anything. I just look at your leaky roof, nod and call a guy.
You do provide a service though. Do the people who own the apartments actively do anything in particular that makes sense for them to own it completely?
Who do you think would have a more vested interest in running the apartments in a functional and efficient manner, the people maintaining the buildings or the people who see it as one of their many investment properties.
Socialism isn’t just about what’s fair, it’s also about creating a more efficient system to distribute labour and resources.
So the condo association here is the ‘means of production’ since they’re providing housing services. Ideally, it’d be owned by the workers (who would ideally also be condo owners) and they’d split any profits evenly.
Ah, Landlords aren’t the evil capitalist class then. They’re just a worker that owns the means of production and splits the profits evenly with themselves.
They’re just a worker
“My landlord is a worker”
“How do you know?”
“He said if anything breaks in the unit, he’ll fix it”
“Has he fixed anything yet?”
“No, but that’s beside the point”
Maybe there’s a terminology problem, but I thought each condo unit was individually owned? Like, if you’ve got a tower block, and everybody owns their own domicile within it, it’s a condo, but if they’re owned by a landlord and rented out, it’s an apartment.
It was a tongue in cheek strawman or if you want to be fancy, a pedagogical tool.
If “providing housing” is a job/service/whatever produced by workers then I, as a theoretical landlord, own some means of production and split the profits with all of the workers: myself.
It seemed like a funny twist of words.
Wrong, idiot.
And here I thought this wasn’t Reddit
It’s less “Not Reddit” every day, sadly
You do produce a lack of issue. Like there was an issue, then you make it not an issue.
What would be the means of production? I am uncertain.
- Even in communist paradise, we will have building superintendents.
- On the other hand, owning one’s own home might be the means of production in this sense.
The organization and tools involved in the job.
So for the condo super “owning the means” could be being part of co-op that manages the building.
Byod
Life lesson = thieves will deflect criticism of the corporatist oligarchy supremacists by calling their theft socialism. Gimme your sandwich, commie.
Duplo is lego though.
Yeah, and a warm can od diet Sam’s club soda is the same as a Pepsi
No, they rebranded. Duplo really is LEGO nowadays.
Yeah, but they are still separate products
No, dad has a point. Kid had half of his labor taken in order to provide for others. Get him a pension, healthcare, and some robust workers rights
I asked my insufferable pet cat about this, and they dropped a wall of text on me:
It’s not socialism and this exact notion that “socialism is when workers get compensated fully and fairly for their work and when they own the means of production” has been thoroughly called out for being nonsensical. Workers merely owning their means of production is a minor improvement, but it doesn’t abolish capital or exploitation given how markets and commodity production still exist.
Now, in order to compete within that market for profit, workers have to exploit themselves by reducing their wages, increasing their own work hours to produce more goods to outflood their opponents so they essentially turn to collective capitalists.
A person under this system also can’t make full value of their labor, simply because there’s taxes that are used to fund public sectors such as education, healthcare, etc (it’s necessary though). People also are different, some can work more intensely with higher tempo due to how they’re built, and others might not be able to put in the same amount of labor, thus it’s impossible to have “fair compensation” without uprooting commodity production, doing away with money completely and instead producing things to fulfill everyone’s needs. Only then can things truly be “fair”.
it’s impossible to have “fair compensation” without uprooting commodity production, doing away with money completely and instead producing things to fulfill everyone’s needs. Only then can things truly be “fair”.
That’s Communism, not socialism. Sure, socialism has some similarities to Capitalism, that’s because Socialism was never the end goal, but a transition period between Capitalism and Communism.
workers have to exploit themselves by reducing their wages
Workers don’t ‘exploit’ themselves, workers decide if it’s worth doing the work for what they can reasonably expect in return or not. If they decide it is worth it, it’s something they chose for themselves, not even close to the same thing as a Capitalist squeezing every last cent of ‘profit’ from you as they possibly can and basically forcing you to do it by making it impossible to survive if you don’t.
A person under this system also can’t make full value of their labor, simply because there’s taxes that are used to fund public sectors such as education, healthcare, etc (it’s necessary though).
They still get the full value of their labor. Taxes used to benefit the community benefit workers as well, because they are members of the commuity. Capitalists under capitalism still (are supposed to) pay taxes- and so do workers. Workers who are more fairly compensated for their work and have to pay taxes are better off than a wage slave who isn’t fairly compensated and still has to pay taxes.
That is the comparison to make, is Socialism better than Capitalism? Yes. Is Communism better than Socialism? Yes. It makes little sense to tell workers trapped in a Capitalistic system that Socialism isn’t good because it’s not as good as Communism.
People also are different, some can work more intensely with higher tempo due to how they’re built, and others might not be able to put in the same amount of labor
That’s exactly why you don’t try and be little capitalists. You can and should still care for people who are in that situation. Workers who receive a more fair share of their labor will be better equipped to help out the members of the community who are less fortunate than them, not less.
it doesn’t abolish capital
No, and it’s not supposed to. It just transfers it to the people and takes it out of the hands of the ruling class. “Capital” in an of itself isn’t a bad thing, It’s when Capital exclusively owned by a small ruling class and used to exploit and siphon wealth from the working class (Capitalism) that’s when it becomes a problem.
That’s Communism, not socialism. Sure, socialism has some similarities to Capitalism, that’s because Socialism was never the end goal, but a transition period between Capitalism and Communism.
Yes, never said that was socialism, only that’s how a fair society can only operate. Also, depending on the socialism in the context, it might not even be a transitionary period but rather bourgeois socialism that Marx criticized thoroughly in Critique of Gotha Programme, which is where 99% of my comment comes from
Workers don’t ‘exploit’ themselves, workers decide if it’s worth doing the work for what they can reasonably expect in return or not. If they decide it is worth it, it’s something they chose for themselves, not even close to the same thing as a Capitalist squeezing every last cent of ‘profit’ from you as they possibly can and basically forcing you to do it by making it impossible to survive if you don’t.
The market forces workers to exploit themselves, given how the primary way cost cutting happens is through decrease of wages, as most production costs are set in stone (like materials needed or machinery upkeep
They still get the full value of their labor. Taxes used to benefit the community benefit workers as well, because they are members of the commuity. Capitalists under capitalism still (are supposed to) pay taxes- and so do workers. Workers who are more fairly compensated for their work and have to pay taxes are better off than a wage slave who isn’t fairly compensated and still has to pay taxes.
Yes, but if they pay a portion of value of their labor, they don’t get the full value. It’s an involuntary payment that is good and necessary, but the point is that getting full value is impossible under bourgeois state and commodity production society
Yes, never said that was socialism, only that’s how a fair society can only operate.
Ok, well it’s confusing how you worded it then because you start by saying “It’s not socialism”, and then you describe communism. It made it sound as if you were saying that it was socialism.
It might not even be a transitionary period
Sure, and some societies already act as if the end goal is socialism. Even so I think it’s valuable to try and work toward socialism because even if it doesn’t ever fully transition to communism (or is extremely slow about it), that state of being is still preferable to Capitalism.
The market forces workers to exploit themselves, given how the primary way cost cutting happens is through decrease of wages
Sure, under Capitalism that’s true- I doubt the first thing a collective of workers would think to do is cutting their wages. They would probably cut the CEO’s and the Middle Managers pay to make the pay fair for everybody.
I just disagree with your definition of ‘exploit’. Agreeing with your fellow workers to take home less pay to keep the factory viable is not exploitation. A CEO cutting workers pay so that hey can pay himself $40,000,000/yr IS exploitation. It’s not the same thing at all imo.
Yes, but if they pay a portion of value of their labor, they don’t get the full value
Again, the definitely DO get the full value of their labor. A worker is a member of the community. A worker pay’s taxes for things that benefit the community. As a member of the community, the taxes benefit the worker.
It’s an involuntary payment that is good and necessary
It’s only ‘involuntary’ if you are stuck in a capitalist mode of thinking and aren’t willingly pitching in to help the community. If socialism ‘forces’ such a person to help- that’s only going to benefit the community. Under communism no one could force such a person to contribute.
the point is that getting full value is impossible under bourgeois state and commodity production society
I really don’t think most socialists are as hung op on getting the ‘full value’ out of their labor as you are making it sound. It’s not about squeezing every last penny of ‘profit’ from your labor as is humanly possible. It’s about being fairly compensated for your time and effort- that’s it. If we “have” to pay taxes- fine. If we “have” to accept a slightly lower compensation for a time fine.
CEO’s cutting benefits and pay to pay themselves more money- not fine. Wage theft- not fine.
If we could snap our fingers and go straight from a Capitalist hellhole to a Communist utopia- I’d be snapping right along with you. We can’t though and as you can tell it’s hard enough to get people on board with socialism. There is no way most people will just accept jumping straight to Communism. They have to be shown that sharing resources is a viable strategy first- because they definitely don’t believe that now.
Sorry if this might come as rude or elitist - not my intention as I’ve been there, but I’d really recommend reading some theory if you’re interested in this kind of stuff. Even some shorter works of Marx & Engels will dispel A LOT of misconceptions a leftist might have about socialism/communism/what’s actually the problem/etc that one might get just via osmosis of the popular discourse.
Now to respond to some of the points (though not all, too tired right now):
My point about workers not getting full value from their labor mostly targets the wording in the meme, it’s pedantry. Whether you think it’s fair to count taxes or not isn’t really relevant, but the fact that you have a system where whether you like it or not the state will take away some of your earnings from your labor means that you cannot really receive the full value of your labor, something always will get deducted. Though there was a better example of this I should have used, directly related to labor that you end up making:
Agreeing with your fellow workers to take home less pay to keep the factory viable is not exploitation.
Taking less pay in order to compete in the market economy is literally what capitalists do on behalf of workers - take their surplus value to expand production and remain competitive (and ofc live off of this surplus value themselves individually). In a coop, this would also happen under a market economy as you yourself say, and this money will come from the value of the commodities they produce as in the fruits of their labor they’re supposed to be getting “full value” of. See how it doesn’t make sense?
Also, I admit I should have asked this previously, but what exactly is socialism defined by for you? Based on your comment, I gather that few things exist in this socialism, and those are:
- Commodity production and markets remains in place
- Surplus value is still being appropriated, but democratically
- Getting taxed by the state to help the community via public services
- Money remains in place as value form, meaning capital accumulation is still possible
- Something that can be achieved through reforms if enough people believe in it? (idk about this one but that’s what i’m inferring)
Now I might be wrong about these and maybe you have a different definition in mind, but this is pretty much identical to a social democracy which is still fully capitalist. Coops exist within capitalism right this moment in some countries - individual companies where workers collectively own the means of production, but they still have to play within the rules of capitalist mode of production.
Sure, it might be better but socialist/communist goal isn’t to make things better, but to change the current state of things entirely. This is why actual socialism, which is defined by figures like Lenin, Marx and other non-falsifier communist theorists has markets and commodity production already abolished. Before socialism after workers take power, there is a period of transition where commodity production at least partially remains in place as a way to distribute goods while productive forces (like factories and infrastructure) are still being developed so everyone’s needs can actually be met during socialist stage.
Money gets abolished in favor of labor vouchers that get discarded after being used up (so there’s no more accumulation of capital), things start being produced for use - there’s still a long way to go towards communism at this stage, but this is how you actually stop being capitalist and create a separate mode of production instead of just making things a bit better but still fundamentally capitalist.
Anyway yap yap nobody reads this as seen from the amount of upvotes, still had to leave one as it would have felt rude if I didn’t and just left you hanging there
Sorry if this might come as rude or elitist - not my intention as I’ve been there, but I’d really recommend reading some theory if you’re interested in this kind of stuff.
It’s ok. I understand that a lot of my thinking doesn’t align with Marxist-Leninist ideas and people who are die hard believers in any particular label tend to assume that others who don’t think exactly like them are just ill informed or haven’t ‘read theory’. I don’t really love labels but if you had to put the most general one you could on me it would be ‘Anarcho-communist’. I’m probably more Anarchist than Communist, but in a world where ‘The State’ has been eliminated I would be more communist than anything else.
Marx and Engels were great thinkers, but I don’t agree with everything they espoused. For one thing I don’t think anybody from their time could have predicted how the world would end up today. For another they were just human beings, not prophets. It is and should be an evolving discussion based on the real world, not just ideals. Being too rigid in their thinking and adhering too closely to foundational texts is why I left the church when I was 18. I have no desire to regress to similarly rigid thinking.
My point about workers not getting full value…
Again, I don’t really think that your idea of what ‘full value of labor’ and what many socialists mean line up at all. It’s about being fairly compensated for your labor- that’s really all it means. Seems like a silly thing to get hung up on when its basically a straw man.
In a coop, this would also happen under a market economy as you yourself say, and this money will come from the value of the commodities they produce as in the fruits of their labor they’re supposed to be getting “full value” of. See how it doesn’t make sense?
It makes perfect sense if you remove the words “full value” and replace it with ‘fair compensation’.
Think of it this way, in a communist society people also work without receiving the ‘full value’ of their labor for the benefit of themselves and their community right? So we agree that people can be better than pure profit motive driven greed machines. Why would work under Communism and not Socialism?
what exactly is socialism defined by for you?
The most common way that socialism gets defined, not just by me but my most sources, is a system where ‘private property’ is abolished, and the workers own the means of production. In my view this means that everything else (natural resources, national parks, etc) are owned by the people in common.
As to what specific features socialism has to have on top of that- there are a variety of options. I can say what I would like to happen, and what I would advocate for, but I am no mans ruler and it would ultimately be up the the people to work out the fine details.
This is why actual socialism, which is defined by figures like Lenin, Marx and other non-falsifier communist theorists
Those people had their own ideas about what socialism/communism is- but they were by no means the only people with ideas- those just happen to be the ones gained the most popularity. There were communists before Marx and Engles and there were a lot after that didn’t’ agree with everything that they believed in. They can give their definitions of what those things are- they can’t give the definition. Things can differ from their vision and it still be ‘actual socialism’.
Money gets abolished in favor of labor vouchers that get discarded after being used up (so there’s no more accumulation of capital), things start being produced for use - there’s still a long way to go towards communism at this stage, but this is how you actually stop being capitalist and create a separate mode of production instead of just making things a bit better but still fundamentally capitalist.
That’s one way to do it, but it kind of depends on each country being self sufficient. After all we can’t trade for things we might need from countries that have it with labor vouchers only good in our country. If the labor vouchers are transferable, - it’s no different than just using money.
Sure, it might be better but socialist/communist goal isn’t to make things better, but to change the current state of things entirely.
To get pedantic myself, the goal is to radically change the current state of things- because we think that will be better, so the goal is absolutely to make things better. The question isn’t where we want to end up, we can pretty much all agree on that (I think), but how we get there is the tricky part.
People are highly resistant to change. There are basically only two choices when it comes to radical change in a society
Option 1. Try and force the change on them. I don’t think this will ever work in the long term. People will fight back and resent you for using force on them. When the end goal is to have a fair and humane society where everyone is equal and we all do the right things because they are the right things- using this method is more likely to backfire than any other strategy.
Option 2. Educate people and advocate for the change you want to see in the world. Allow people to choose the right thing of their own free will and with informed consent. In my humble opinion this is the only way that a lasting communist society could ever possibly form.
If you hold people down and make them ‘act right’, the second you release the pressure they will try to hold you down and make you act like they want you to act. If you show people a better way and invite them to join you- they are more likely to follow along with the program.
That being said there is only so much a society can reasonably be expected to take, and when the Capitalists take the gloves off and go full fascist mode- the chances of the people violently revolting are high. If that were to happen in the U.S. I can all but guarantee that it won’t be replaced by communism.
Don’t mistake me- I’m not saying that we can win by asking nicely. I don’t think we will ever be able to achieve socialism or communism by voting for it, and I don’t think the ruling class will go down without a fight- but I think there is a decent 3rd option between forcing our beliefs on people and being unwilling to get our hands dirty. Get people to choose change first, to demand change, and fight with them against their oppressors.
Robots. Robot slaves for everyone is the solution.
Fully automated luxury gay space communism
I asked my cat about this, and he said,
“You’re literally describing capitalism, Ruairidh. Do you not pay taxes, you dumb fuck? Now scratch my head, just a little, and then give me treats.”
I didn’t ask my cat anything. He just ran up, smacked me, called me a loser, and stole a chicken thigh off my plate.
That’s a kleptocat, clearly just bypassing capitalism/communism and going straight to the end game
“So now we’re going to start practicing capitalism. Buy your own fucking blocks, you freeloading piece of shit! I don’t even want these, but you sure as shit can’t have them!”
That 18 month old’s name? Julian Delphiki.
Ok, that’s a solid reference even if I won’t read those anymore. Kudos.
I asked my alter ego whether that definition of socialism was right and he said that I should ask my other alter ego, who said that this looks shopped, but couldn’t confirm for some reason, so he went on to ask one of his sockpuppet imaginary friends whether this was true and came back with a slap to my face.
So, there you have it, slap on my face/true
But also the dad was so stupid from Trumptard brainwashing and AI brain rot that he was unable to read the 5-line paragraph that his toddler authored, so the message was never received anyway.
Well actually I inquired with the spirits living at the boundary of reality and the world of pure information and they had no idea who your alter ego was.
Leftists will read this and say, “Hell yeah!”
Hell yeah!
Leftists will read this and say, “”
My god reddit being pedantic is the understatement of the year…
Do you have the original text, OP? You got me curious (^_^)
im pretty sure thw original was “not in my america” lol :D
