this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2026
453 points (91.9% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
3516 readers
673 users here now
A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.
RULES:
1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.
2 No Trolling
3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.
4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.
5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.
6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc. This includes instance shaming.
Introduction to Socialism (external links)
Marxism-Leninism Study Guide: Basic Course
Marxism-Leninism Study Guide: Advanced Course
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They were leninists, not communists. As nazis weren't really socialists. Communism seeks to abolish private property, means of production ownership and social classes. The soviet union government was the most dominant class ever, they owned every single mean of production and they had the property of absolute all the land. They were the absolute opposite of communism. Same with North Korea (they are "The Democractic Republic of The People of Korea", and they are not democratic, not republicans, and people have nothing). Names most of the time are just propaganda.
Claiming Leninists aren't communist is a bit like claiming Jeffersonians aren't capitalist.
Leninist created a government with a extremwly powerful class, that owned all means of production. Please explain us how's that communism
The... proletariat class? Are you suggesting a working class in Russia didn't exist prior to 1917?
That user is suggesting that the Party administration, by virtue of controlling the means of production was definitionally not proletariat, but in fact the most concentrated group of bourgeois administrators.
Administration is not a class in Marxist understanding. Classes are relations to ownership of the means of production and distribution. Principals and teachers are both proletarian, despite having different managerial levels.
There is, after all, no true communist.
Marxist-Leninists are the most widely adopted school of communist theory and practice. You're horribly butchering your understanding of Marxism when you conflate class with administration. Classes are relations to ownership of the means of production. In the USSR, industry and the land were collectively owned (for the most part, there were cooperatives called Artels under Stalin that were abolished under Khrushchev, etc.), and administrators received their pay in wages. They did not own capital and did not profit off of capitalism.
As for the DPRK, their model of democracy is based on approval voting. As of 2024, they have begun to roll out multi-candidate primaries, but prior to 2024 they had a Democratic Front which decided on what candidates to put to the vote, and then you can vote to approve or not. It's a very different democratic model from western countries, but it's inaccurate to call it non-democratic.
Just because groups like the Nazis have used names for their own advantage does not actually mean all groups are the opposite of their claimed ideology. I think it would do you good to study Marxism a bit more, both in theory and practice.
While I accept that may have some degree of merit RE the Soviet Union at least; so the post may as well be meaningless. Multiple countries and their variation of economics fall under capitalism. Seemingly none fall under communism. So the picture is essentially claiming “communism, a supposedly purely hypothetical system of governing/economics has never done anything bad” which ok so? By the same logic it’s never done anything good either, because it’s allegedly never really been implemented. It’s comparing real life to ideals/fiction.
Oh, I can point to a historical example of communism. Australia. Australia has 60,000 years of classless, stateless, moneyless history. And it was great!
To add to this I'm pretty sure the early capitalist thinkers like Locke didn't aim for the late stage capitalism society that America had become. If we are comparing ideology that's what we should compare with but if we are comparing actual real life scenarios communism is stuck with Soviet, China and Cuba.
You're ALMOST getting it.
The point isn't that communism is great. It's that the communist threat that capitalist demagogues love to bandy about is purely hypothetical, unlike the very real and present harms of capitalism.