Capitalism has made it possible for charities to exist. People couldn't contribute to charities without financial or property/goods to contribute. Especially considering charities are almost all Online now a days where people can contribute to those charities.

Capitalism is literally a system where those with ideas and capability to build industry - help everyone else because they provide jobs so people can purchase products and services.

The whole of the community can contribute the fruits of their labor to a common cause without any sort of ownership of it. In fact, with a whole society sharing all of the resources, charity becomes obsolete because we naturally just make sure everyone already HAS what they need.

Capitalism makes charity NECESSARY. That's not a GOOD thing. Again, helping others is GOOD. Creating the NEED for others to get help is not. Try reading a book. Give it a try. It can't hurt you at this point.

Lmao - if that's true name me some socialist situations that turned out great, because I can name them that eventually devolved into mass murder of opposition to socialism when it broke down. Eventually socialism always runs out of other people's money.

You're misguided in thinking any formal government has truly tried socialism.

Which model of socialism are you talking about? The Engel's model or Henri's model?

Neither. That's the thing. I am not following some idea invented by others. That itself would be a failing model.

Lmao you're misguided thinking a few governments haven't

Yep. "Well nobody has tried socialism the right way yet!!" -- what socialists think socialism is - is actually a Eutopia. Which I love the idea of Eutopia - but it hasn't been tried properly yet lmao

Kibbutzim, Freetown Christiania, Twin Oaks, Zapatista Autonomous Communities, Mondragon Cooperative, etc.

Plenty of people have done it. It just hasn't been done by GOVERNMENTS because a few people controlling the resources is literally the opposite of socialism. If you had an active understanding of the concept you'd have known this but it was fun to watch you guys hang yourselves in this chat.

Kibbutz? Most of those have taken on a more Capitalistic Approach. Steeeeeerike 1.

Freetown Christiania? Their cannabis sales attracted police authorities and devolved into violence. To which they had to turn to the Government for help. Steeeeeerike 2.

Twin Oaks? High community turn out - people coming and leaving regularly due to not being able to build personal equity & other factors. It's main reason for staying afloat was adopting Capitalistic principles with work. I'll not count that as a strike though.

Zapatista? Has had to rely on the major government on multiple occasions. So that's not true socialism either. Steeeeeerike 3 , you're out!

Kibbutz = government oppression to socialism

Christiana = government oppression to socialism

Twin Oaks = socialism inside and capitalism for the capitalist world outside - thanks for understanding. Until everywhere turns socialist, all socialist systems will need to operate like this or be entirely self sustaining. That SHOULD be obvious.

Zapatista has rejected the government intervention several times. They declared a war on the Mexican state over it. When the government failed to stop this, Zapatistas armed themselves and built autonomous municipalities. To say that they relied on major government rather than being oppressed by them can only be said if you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Thanks for being honest though. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. I hope the internet points feel nice from the bots here because you're taking major L's on the IRL front.

Any socialist system that is led by a singular person or small group is inherently not socialist. That would mean the resources are not controlled by the people but by that small group that makes decisions. Read more. Talk less.

Apparently you don't know much about socialism. Even infantile AI Grok understands it better than you lmao.

using the bottom tier of AI for a definition is the epitome of stupid

No you're thinking of socialism. That's the epitome of stupid lmao

No, I stand by what I said.

You standing by what you said - that's the new epitome of something.

Bro asked GROK to tell him something...of ALL the AI models, bahahahahahaha

You're referring to a Eutopia where everyone does what is needed of them & exchanges goods and services because they are happy to play their role and part. Just about every socialism example observable to history or modern society -- heavily relies on Government.

China, the second biggest economy on the planet.
That question has long passed it's Use By date decades ago.

Tell all of the slave labor in China how great it is.

Allow me to repeat my comment and yours so that we can both not waste my time again for an hour and a half like we did the other day when you couldn't scroll up one comment to see what I said and to what even though you were replying to my comment.

Here we go, what we said was:

▶️ "LetsGo_Elect_Brandon_JR 8h

Lmao - if that's true name me some socialist situations that turned out great, because I can name them that eventually devolved into mass murder of opposition to socialism when it broke down. Eventually socialism always runs out of other people's money."

▶️ "Modda 1h

China, the second biggest economy on the planet.
That question has long passed it's Use By date decades ago."

⬛ Do not reply. Simply read both those comments until you understand what both you and I were saying, and what I said and how it pertains to what you said. Do this repeatedly till you finally understand. Let's not have a rehash of what we did the other day in which it was a back and forth until you finally after an hour and a half read my comment for the first time - THE comment that you initially replied to.

Again, do not reply. Just read them. No need for me to reiterate it five times for you to not understand. No need, just none. Save me some room on my notifications.

Just because people point out your flaws in logic doesn't mean they aren't reading your comments or understanding them. Don't hate on me because you're saying Slave Labor is great by definition of answering my question

Why are you so against slave labor?

Are you for increasing the minimum wage so that it reflects the national economic growth AND cost of living?

And to simplify things in case you're distracted by not understanding what you yourself said and what I said in response, I'll just leave this one sentence to decipher. To simplify things:

"China, the second biggest economy on the planet."

This is a very simple sentence. It should be very easy to translate into any language. No need for complicated discourse going back and forth. It's a standalone comment that should be easy enough for anybody to understand.

China,
the second biggest
economy
on the planet.

I can't make this any simpler. Any difficulties with that? You're on your own.

Yeah I definitively defended my stance - because that didn't turn out great. You can't say it turned out great when they rely and abuse people with slave labor. My retort is based on you saying it turned out great by naming it. My comment was name one that turned out great & you named an economy based on slave labor -- which I'm pretty sure you're against.

and sweat shops that send goods to Walmart.

Goods that Republicans buy.

China is state capitalism. Big difference. True socialism puts the government to work defending the dignity of people's lives, not giving them everything. In a successful socialist society, people would work for their communities voluntarily.

Name the successful socialist nations.

Like I've said previously, the 'socialist' nations in the world today (China, North Korea) are not socialist in nature. They are state capitalist and totalitarian states, respectively.

As a socialist I decry the Marxist-Leninist variety of socialism for being overly authoritarian; however, one cannot deny the success of the socialist system in Cuba.
Cuba has a literacy rate of 99.8%, (up from the low 70s before the socialist revolution) according to the World Bank, compared to just around 80% for the US. This is owing to the fact that education is free at all levels and highly accessible. Cuba was the first nation to sign, and second to ratify, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, a UN treaty that has since been ratified by 189 countries.

The growing wealth inequality in Cuba, like many (but not all) of their economic weaknesses, is caused by the brutal US commercial and trade embargo of Cuba that began in 1960. This embargo bans trade between Cuba and the USA, which has had tragic effects like shortage of goods such as medicines, medical supplies, and the weakening of public services and infrastructure. Not only has this embargo impacted direct trade between the US and Cuba, it has also affected third countries' ability to trade with Cuba, leading to even worse economic woes.
The UN has repeatedly and consistently condemned the embargo since its application, but the US won't lift the embargo, because they fear what would happen if a socialist nation would be able to fully operate properly. The years of anti-socialist fear-mongering and 'socialism never works' propaganda would be disproven in a matter of years.

It's no wonder we say 'socialism never works', because whenever the people try to implement it, they are locked into a permanent economic stranglehold by powerful, wealthy nations.
However, I won't die on the hill of China, and certainly not North Korea, so don't pretend I will.

Are they free? Can they protest? Do they get sent away to a camp for being a bad machine?

Perhaps the lack of a cold war would change things

The COVID pandemic is already over. Also - no, no it wouldn't. Because there are plenty of cases of socialism devolving into people getting killed over lack of resources when other people's money dries up

When was COVID brought up?

The "cold" war... It's a pun.

Ah, I see

Name the communist country that created wealth and a higher standard of living for its people? Now add one that permits freedom.

"Name one communist country" is a fundamentally loaded question. It assumes communism exists in the world today or in recent history, which is incorrect.

Definition of communism: a socioeconomic order centred on common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products in society based on need. A communist society entails the absence of private property and social classes, and ultimately money and the state.

Have any countries ever fully abolished social classes, money, or the state?

Exactly, it has failed every time to benefit the people in ways it promises. Repeating the same experiment expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

A communist society is a utopia; you don't have to believe in it, but to complain that 'it doesn't work' is stupid. Like all utopias, it's a distant dream. The difference with communism is that it is a distant dream with actual steps of how to get there, albeit varied ones.

Steps that always, every time become missteps leading to the massacre of the very citizens it presumes to elevate. Stupid is believing in a utopia that is unobtainable and ignoring human nature.

Who is ignoring human nature? Do you think that 'human nature' is this all-knowing, unmoldable entity that doesn't interact with the world around it? Human nature is decided and shaped by the society it grows and lives in.

Human nature in capitalism is greed, because that is what the capitalist system and world perpetuates.
Human nature in socialism and democracy will be empathy and cooperation because that is what the socialist and democratic system and world will perpetuate.

When has socialism been responsible for massacring citizens?!

No, they haven't. Communes exist. Socialist and communist communities exist - many of them still in operation today after more than 50 years. The idea that a government or small group of people do this for the nation is, itself, not communism because that would then mean that the common ownership is not enforced by them. If it's not enforced by the collective itself, then those who control it are the effective owners.

Believing that trying Communisms repeated failure again is raw stupidly and the definition of insanity.

I don't think I said, "let's try a government that does communism" at all actually but that's a cute man of straw you've built there. I'm sure he really deserved it.

Oh, funny you have all the little communist phrases and colloquialisms down pat.

I've read Animal Farm, and I Must Betray You. Your point for communism is invalid.

It's very strange that you infer "communism" to "helping others"

It must be miserable being that afraid of people.

The intention of communism was to help others. As much as I would like to help others, I would much rather do it willingly than to be forced to do it because someone wanted to make the system so no one can own anything for themselves and everyone has to give away everything because the government forces us to.

If you don't want to be a part of society then don't. If you do, then do. Society helps one another. Society is a social system. That's why it's called SOCIETY and not CAPITALIETY. Social systems and social problems require social solutions. This is the genesis of the term social-ism, or socialism.

If you don't like society - leave.

What if I told you the person making this meme is a liar…..

It would be no worse than your record setting liar icon