in communist shares, you pay dividends.
Those damn commies have struck again!! 🫵
This is exactly what life under communism is like.
This sanctimonious yet ignorant, idiotic pronouncement sounds like another type of thing that this sanctimonious yet ignorant type of idiot would say: bOtH pArTiEs ArE tHe SaMe LoL aMiRiTe.
Communism would be that everyone only owns one share of the stock and you can’t sell or trade in anyway but they do get dividends.
But across the entire market and not just public companies, all of them.
And there is no money and no classes and no state. Companies would become one company, all owned by workers. Almost seems unattainable.
If you’ve ever tried making decisions with your dumbest coworkers it really does seem unattainable
You are right. Humanity needs to evolve out of its “teenage stupidity” phase.
deleted by creator
If you’re still using Robinhood after the shit they pulled years ago you’re a goober
That’s alright. This screenshot was from 2021
Quite literally* is* the shit that happened years ago
If you describe communism to these morons without ever saying “communism” then they salivate over what you have just described to them
A system where there is no central authority and everyone has an equal share of both responsibility and power? Somehow I don’t think they’d find that particularly enthralling.
That’s anarchism, communism can have a central authority, it’s just the resources are distributed equitably.
Thats socialism, which is meant to lead eventually to communism. The end goal is to have no state.
If my understanding is correct, that is.
yeah, Lenin even stated this was the end-goal.
I don’t think it’s possible for a state to give up power.
it’s one of those things a lot of thought’s been put into and commies themselves argue about. i feel it’s great to conceptualize (and with it the differing definitions of “the state” as well) but i’m not a scholar anyway, this ain’t the place, and it’s moot since socialism needs to be achieved first anyway, after we beat this whole fascism thing. no point in worrying to much about it eh?
To be fair 🤓 since it’s mostly theoretical, any definition of communism is going to be in flux as it has not achieved a shelf-stable real life application yet.
It’s shelf stable in the same way as a clay pigeon.
Anarchism, as a whole concept, doesn’t put equality first. It can divide power and resources equally, but it doesn’t have to.
With Communism there is a specific emphasis on power (and resources) and responsibility being equally shared amongst the populace.
These concepts often have overlap, they do not exist in vacuums unto themselves.
Communism describes a stateless, classless, moneyless society. A communist society with a central authority definitionally cannot exist
Someone working towards communism is a communist. A state that is working towards communism is a communist state.
Whether the state is actually trying to make itself obsolete is a different thing.
But that of course isn’t what they said even if might be what they meant. A communist society implies it has achieved communism because language is fun.
I would argue that a state can’t make that transition, as it is contrary to the structural organization and power dynamics of the state. So much so, that its effectively useless to label a state “moving towards communism” as communist. The closest a state ever got to actually doing that was Yugoslavia and that ended the minute Tito died. The term “communism” has been muddied by western propaganda and state capitalists co-opting the term. I think making the distinction is worthwhile and provides mutual understanding when people are communicating about something that has become so obfuscated
Since states aren’t real things with wills of their own and there are only people and their social constructs, you’re effectively arguing that it is impossible for anyone to act honestly or for altruistic purposes.
No system can withstand the people who make it up acting in bad faith. That does not mean that is impossible for systems to have integrity on the whole.
Have you met people? The largest size a communist society as defined in this thread could be is one.
The state and capitalism are a set of intertwined manmade abstractions that we live under and within. They provide a set of incentives for certain behaviors (competition, “hard work”, the nuclear family, etc), and discourage others with the threat of violence (organizing, cooperation, diversity). Under capitalism and the modern nation, the people at the bottom are given just enough to keep the majority of us from revolting, in tandem with the threat of becoming “less than human” (eg the homeless). Those in the middle/management class are given slightly more to reinforce the myths of the system while ensuring the loyalty of this group to the status quo. Those at the top live lavishly and reap the benefits of everyone below them, they own the means and they call the shots. It is a disadvantage for those at the top to have compassion or empathy for those below them.
The system was built to simultaneously select for selfishness and corruption, and instills those values in people who don’t already possess them as they progress up the chain. I’m not saying that it’s impossible for people in positions of power to act altruistically, I’m saying it’s not really built with that in mind and it encourages behaviors contrary to altruism. That nuance is important. Hierarchical systems are fragile, and we’re witnessing the system breaking in real time. Why should we reinstate a system that will inevitably wind up putting everyone in a similar situation again? Shouldn’t we be looking for alternatives to the state and capitalism?
Ehhhhhh Communism is a stateless, moneyless society. Really a form of anarchism however states which aspire to move to this eventually often use central planning as a transitional step.
States don’t aspire to Communism, people do. States aspire to use a watered down form of Communism to trick populations into giving them power.
Not the actual republicans that are rich cunts, no, but their useful idiots who are dirt poor and fucking dumb, yes
Really? I doubt it. Calling them morons doesn’t really help your case either
You’re right, they’re pea-brained fuck stumps
I still don’t understand why people are so obsessed with gamestop.
it killed all the good game stores.
its exploitative
it doesnt pay shit for trade ins… especially when you consider what they sell the resultant game for.
and it treats employees like shit.
I genuinely cant understand why stockbros are so fucking obsessed with artificially pumping this shit up with their obsessive memeing for literally years, nor do I understand how it hasnt been investigated as a blatant stock manipulation.
PS: I love how everytime capitalism does something horrible, right wingers come in and are all like “thats like living under communism/socialism/whateverism”, completely seriously.
I genuinely cant understand why stockbros are so fucking obsessed with artificially pumping this shit up with their obsessive memeing
It was actually a bit of legit class warfare. The institutional investors and billionaires were shorting GME so much that they were overexposed, and when u/DeepFuckingValue on Reddit spotted and shared it tons of regular middle-class retail investors all piled in to collectively fuck over the billionaires by pumping the price knowing that the short positions would still have to be filled. Probably some billionaires made money too, but for the most part is was a “regular folk vs Wall Street” affair.
nor do I understand how it hasnt been investigated as a blatant stock manipulation.
They literally hauled u/DeepFuckingValue up in front of a Congressional Inquiry for pointing out on Reddit that a stock was oversubscribed, which is more than they’ve done for the many questionable insider stock purchases made by politicians and their families in recent years. Indeed, that’s a big part of why the story won’t go away, because it very publicly proved that the rules only apply if you’re not connected.
Indeed, that’s a big part of why the story won’t go away, because it very publicly proved that the rules only apply if you’re not connected.
That’s the big point there. Idk if it was really the “little guys” who benefited - mostly people who had the money to invest. But it proved how fucking arbitrary and stupid and meaningless the stock market is.
We’re told that rich people earned their money through hard work - the guy I knew who put his money on GME for the lols and made bank earned more money by doing nothing than I made working 60+ hours a week as a teacher.
Idk if it was really the “little guys” who benefited - mostly people who had the money to invest.
Someone with $50k spare to play the markets has $50,000 more than someone living paycheck-to-paycheck, and $999,950,000 less than a billionaire. The “little guys” in this story are the ones who don’t have “buy a politician” money.
I realize that first $50k is super important to your day-to-day life and conquering that second tier of Maslow’s hierarchy and all, but in class war terms if you start drawing the lines at someone with a nicer car than you, that’s how we end up with Stalinism, which I don’t think anyone wants.
It’s the only game store in many places, and a social hub for people who see being a “gamer” as a core part of their identity. Many of them are too young to remember a time when other game stores existed.
who the fuck is hanging around a gamestop socially? That sounds like a great way to get caught up between a disgruntled employee and a customer pissed off at being offered 40 cents total for 18 games.
I don’t think you understand how much the GameStonk hype is completely divorced from the actual business of GameStop, especially years after the initial short squeeze hype. The people who are still into the stock hype are into some QAnon levels of conspiracy theories and messianic prophecies about the stock. It may as well be a religious cult at this point.
i mean its always been that, from day 1.
They think hedge funds are still shorting it, and that if they hold long enough they will default.
Limiting trade like that is market manipulation.
Which is essential to capitalism.
Its not essential ,its just inevitable. Like most of the problems with capitalism, the problem is the inevitability of wealth consolidation that allows the purchase of power that allows further wealth consolidation that allows the purchase of greater power, round and round. Capitalism is an ouroboros, we are just in the stage where its about to finish eating itself.
Essential? No. It’s ultimately just as harmful to an idealized version of the maximized productivity via competition dream. Smith and Locke both have quite a lot to say on the topic. Smith in particular makes a lot of points on how regulation is required to prevent capitalism strangling itself, which modern laissez-faire enthusiasts always conveniently “forget.” This is the exactly wrong kind of artificial control by the ruling class that they did rail against.
It’s what every capitalist does anyways because it’s the easiest way to steal money, yes, and because every modern capitalist is trained to be that way through the ideology that has developed around an economic theory.
I’m not entirely sure about that. Those people could always just buy GameStop from somewhere that’s not robinhood. this mightve been something that they were financially forced to do, bc this trade limiting just seems like something that would lose them money
I’m not entirely sure about your take. If we say that this is fine and allowable, then you give a few large firms a huge lever to control the market with. If robinhood can limit investment to a specific stock, so could everyone, and at that point you allow them to decide the market through collusion, because you wouldn’t need too many places to get on board to seal a companies fate.
It’s neither free market nor communism, but it sure is capitalism. It’s like a wind up toy about to fall off the edge of a table, we need to free the market again somehow to place it back in the middle of the table
Isn’t this specifically free market though? Robin Hood chose to not offer the service anymore - they aren’t obliged to offer their service?
Iirc, a factor in them doing this was related to the way their model works and the way that prices were fluctuating - that shit could go wrong and bankrupt them.
Like yeah it’s counter to their own marketing, but doesn’t seem counter to the idea of a “free market.”
Free market is as much a myth as stateless communism.
So you can get yours while it slowly edges back to the ledge your children will have to face? Let’s fix the problem once and for all.
How?
Actually… I don’t care for your opinion since you’re already wrong about my motives
That may not be your motive, but it most certainly is the consequence of “bringing it back to the middle”. There is no future is capitalism
With the right regulations in place we can continuously find more ways to prevent or at least slow down the consolidation of wealth and therefore power.
Consolidation of power is the enemy ultimately, and the problem is no matter what the system is, power tends to eventually consolidate due to human nature. The success of capitalism isn’t that it’s perfect, far from it. It’s that it results in a much slower consolidation of power than other systems
Yes, the right regulations, that will then be constantly clawed back again and again until no regulations exist once more. We had wonderful social services and financial and industry regulations in the past, but people who are greedy and don’t want to help their neighbours work tirelessly to remove those services and protections until they no longer function and then remove them completely as “obsolete” because they were never allowed to actually work in the first place.
It’s slowness is it’s most effective and insidious trait. It ingrains itself into a society, with promises of “this is healthy if we just let it be”. Which is clearly not the case.
If most positives from it involve it having to be shackled entirely by regulation to constrain its most definable traits, it is not a good thing. It is just exploitable.
I’d still rather have that than a system that immediately becomes a dictatorship. I just don’t think there is a perfect system if it’s going to be run by dumb selfish humans. AI could maybe take a crack at it though, idk
So don’t support dictators :)
Capitalism is an inherently hierarchical system, and hierarchical systems fundamentally consolidate power to the top. This consolidation of power is a primary feature of the capitalist and state structures. You can’t out regulate the nature of hierarchy, it will always adapt to the present conditions and find ways to consolidate power. A just and equitable society cannot exist under hierarchy. Humans are highly social and highly adaptable animals, there is no singular “human nature”. What you’ve labeled human nature is the nature of capitalism and the state, not humans.
I’m not interested in slower consolidation, because at the end of the day that means someone else is going to have to deal with the consequences of it down the line. See Canada, the UK, Germany, and Sweden as examples of what will happen under “better regulated” capitalist systems. Things are ok for a generation or two, and then capital begins it’s encroachment once again. They’re closer to the path the US is on than any of them will readily admit. Why would I fight for half measures?
I think we can agree to disagree on that part about human nature. I’ve met plenty of nice people, but those aren’t the ones I’m worried about. You seem to be suggesting we could create a system that could be corruption free indefinitely which has me very intrigued
No, just suggesting that people take charge of their future instead of just assuming that the system will work itself out. The best system is the one that encourages people to not only look out for each other, but also criticize and question each other. And do so freely without the need for financial backing to do so.
That only happens when people decide to work together for their goals, even if they occasionally have to work towards someone else’s instead of their own. Which is entirely possible, no matter how dim a view of others one might have.
If you can buy stocks in a business in that nation then they are not communist or even trying to pursue Marxism.
Shh…don’t tell lemmy.ml about China.
Greetings from Mondragon Corporation
Isn’t that just socialism?
There’s more to communism than marxism.
If you are able to pay people money for investing and not doing any work for said business then the workers are not in any way in control of the means of production.
What version of communism would permit an investor class?
None that are actually communism.
Communism is when there is only one kind of stock to buy on one platform and the government owns both. Robinhood is just being a corporate asshole - couldn’t someone buy GameStop shares elsewhere?
What you you described is not even communist.
But it is an allegory
Well alrighty, and pacifism is only throwing one punch.
And 5 years later my GME is still worth shit. The shorts managed to game the system enough to where they only had a small impact. There will never be a moonshot anymore on it.
Well somebody got rich off you all. It just wasn’t you.
At least this person realizes that they aren’t going to get their money. Too many people are still deluded and think as long as they keep holding on, they’re going to be rich.
Those guys got so fleeced by the people who kept telling them “diamond hands!”
Yeah I’m still positive because I bought pre split, but even if I sell at a loss I still get a chunk of my money back and I can claim the losses on my taxes so 🤷♂️
I’m sure Roaring Kitty or whoever it was cashed out pretty close to the peak, and bought them back when it tumbled.
Fair play, he did a good con.
And yet he’s still celebrated by a hero by people who think any day now the squeeze is going to happen and they’re going to get rich.
GME made out okay after all of that, but AMC is still down like 98% isn’t it? Those idiots split into APE and AMC and then Reverse Split, which ended up charging fees for every single share a person owned on most brokerages due to the reorganization fees.
