Serious Could Communism be based?

[IncelCream]

I was thinking what would make the world less degenerate

Communism

Communist states like Soviets and Mao China was based

Fashion is simple and conservative
No Butts or Boobs

Economy is where Communism messes up

What I think Communism should look like:

Affordable Housing, like Apartments ect
Free Healthcare
Every male should be given $6000 per year from ages of 18 to 22, this will help with unemployment
Conservative simple clothing
Games and Movies should have no nudity, this includes internet and porn
Internet should be restrictive
There should be female migration only
Games should no degenerate
Dictatorship
Men with better jobs
Pro male divorce laws
Promoting sluts should be given gulag

Feel free to add more!!

 

[Deleted member 23712]

Feel free to add deez nuts on ya chin

View: https://youtu.be/3sJ_y1rqVhU

 

[MarquisDeSade]

No, not really, even in Soviet Russia foids were banging all the Chad political vanguard members of the inner socialist party. The very idea of the common male proletariat getting more access to pussy under communism is pure urban legend or mythology.

Sexual communism? It doesn't even exist in actual communist nations.

 

[trying to ascend]

No, because it doesn't work, and its retarded for people to work more than others, and still receive the same amount.

And men wouldn't be given nothing, because in communism there isn't a state to give something

 

[Lebensmüder]

No, not really, even in Soviet Russia foids were banging all the Chad political vanguard members of the inner party. The very idea of the common male proletariat getting more access to pussy is pure urban legend or mythology.

So or so a new hierarchy would arise. In the end human nature is nearly unchangeable.

 

[Deleted member 33893]

No, not really, even in Soviet Russia foids were banging all the Chad political vanguard members of the inner party. The very idea of the common male proletariat getting more access to pussy is pure urban legend or mythology.

Sexual communism? It doesn't even exist in actual communist nations.

This. Communist nations were just slightly less degenerate because they were technologically backwards and were more conservative even before communism.
Paris was already ultra liberal in 19 th century while Russian Moscow was more conservative orthodox christian

 

[MarquisDeSade]

So or so a new hierarchy would arise. In the end human nature is nearly unchangeable.

Doesn't matter what kind of government you have, human nature ruins and spoils everything.

[Especially foid human nature.]

 

[Deleted member 28148]

the only thing that could save the world is unironically fascism at this point, conservatives are mostly too cucked to halt progressive advances

 

[MarquisDeSade]

This. Communist nations were just slightly less degenerate because they were technologically backwards and were more conservative even before communism.
Paris was already ultra liberal in 19 th century while Russian Moscow was more conservative orthodox christian

The underclass of males always lose out no matter what government or political regime prevails.

the only thing that could save the world is unironically fascism at this point, conservatives are mostly too cucked to halt progressive advances

Fascism yes, but even then foids would come to hate you and rebel overtime even if brutal draconian measures are implemented against them through the power of the state. Catch 22 really.

 

[Deleted member 33893]

Fascism yes, but even then foids would come to hate you and rebel overtime even if brutal draconian measures are implemented against them through the power of the state. Catch 22 really.

Women, rebel? That's laughable When have women ever rebelled against men on their own? I would like to see them try, Go on a strike in a fascist state just to be beaten into a submission by the armed forces and have their leaders sentenced to death.

Rebellions are prone to failure anyways, the ones led by women are nearly impossible to succeed in gaining anything.

 

[MarquisDeSade]

Women, rebel? That's laughable When have women ever rebelled against men on their own? I would like to see them try, Go on a strike in a fascist state just to be beaten into a submission by the armed forces and have their leaders sentenced to death.

Rebellions are prone to failure anyways, the ones led by women are nearly impossible to succeed in gaining anything.

Fascism would probably be the only government form to aggressively subdue them, yes. But, it would also be the same government that would cause the most collective female resentment against men. It was almost four thousand years of historical monarchy that basically gave rise to feminism by the turn of the 19th century because of overall collective female resentment. But yes, it probably is the most effective government in controlling, regulating, and restraining them compared to all others at this point on a historical level. Fascism or monarchy really. [Fascism and monarchy being very similar government systems.]

 

[Cope or die]

It could be. Only because most people don't deserve democracy.

 

[DostoevskyCel]

It could be. Only because most people don't deserve democracy.

communism is shit, no debate required in the 21st century. To escape feudalism and aristocracy sure, in the 20th century, but its economic theory is beyond dated and useless, and its social prescriptions are unabashed brainwashing

 

[Six]

State mandated girlfriends too.

 

[Yezd]

No because the universe will find a way to screw me over anyway

 

[Remaincel]

no, communism always destroys all culture, folklore and tradition in the country before it is imposed, and the Marcusian revolution that takes place before it is implemented (and it's happening now all over the west later in the world) supports all that is cuck, soy

 

[tacotown2142]

the only thing that could save the world is unironically fascism at this point, conservatives are mostly too cucked to halt progressive advances

fascism is unstable as fuck and tyrannical regimes almost never last very long. Absolute monarchy and constitutional monarchy where the royals are more than just figureheads are probably the best options overall.

 

[Blackpill Rage]

The only legit form of communism is sexual communism.

 

[FinnCel]

Seize the means of reproduction

 

[IncelCream]

fascism is unstable as fuck and tyrannical regimes almost never last very long. Absolute monarchy and constitutional monarchy where the royals are more than just figureheads are probably the best options overall.

This
Bring back the British Empire

 

[Deleted member 17749]

The only legit form of communism is sexual communism.

 

[SuccessfulShark]

fascism is unstable as fuck and tyrannical regimes almost never last very long. Absolute monarchy and constitutional monarchy where the royals are more than just figureheads are probably the best options overall.

What is monarchy if not fascism but instead of a dictator you have a king? Also, jfl at tyrannical regimes not lasting very long, that is so not true, and monarchy is tirannical anyways.

 

[Deleted member 31122]

Early soviet union was degenerate af, I think it was the first country to give toilet rights, and communism is simply against human nature it will never work, those people in power were just renamed monarchs

State mandated girlfriends too.

The only legit form of communism is sexual communism.

 

[tacotown2142]

What is monarchy if not fascism but instead of a dictator you have a king? Also, jfl at tyrannical regimes not lasting very long, that is so not true, and monarchy is tirannical anyways.

Monarchy is not inherently tyrannical. Totalitarianism and tyranny aren't the same thing. Fascism is ideologically-based, monarchy is not. Ideologically-based totalitarian regimes are always going to oppress those who don't religiously ascribe to said ideology and become tyrannical in the process. They always end up in a purity spiral of eating their own. They don't allow any criticism of their dear leader at all. Monarchs CAN be tyrannical, but often are not. Fascism is always tyrannical.

 

[AllanKing]

No, because it doesn't work, and its retarded for people to work more than others, and still receive the same amount.

And men wouldn't be given nothing, because in communism there isn't a state to give something

you misunderstood communism，the first stage of communism is socialism，under socialism，exploitation of capital is abolished，every able bodied person must work ，and gets rewards according to his work amount，the more and better you get work done，the more you get，not everyone gets exactly the same

 

[Black&Red]

Stalinism is the only based form of statism, let's go comrades and seize the means of fornication.

 

[trying to ascend]

you misunderstood communism，the first stage of communism is socialism，under socialism，exploitation of capital is abolished，every able bodied person must work ，and gets rewards according to his work amount，the more and better you get work done，the more you get，not everyone gets exactly the same

No, I didn't, if socialism doesn't work, communism is not achieved, then both are a failure.

No, they don't get rewards according to how much they work, that's capitalism, in socialism state owns everything and give the same for everyone, regardless of how much they produced. So what happens? People didn't have enough incentive to work and produce, that's what happened in USSR.

Collectivization in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

They even manipulated data, and you can clearly see that USSR was a failure, that induced below average growth to its republics.

Year	USSR	United states	Western europe	USSR as a % of United States	USSR as a % of Western Europe
1820	689	1,257	1,232	55	56
1870	943	2,445	1,974	39	48
1913	1,488	5,301	3,473	28	43
1950	2,834	9,561	4,594	30	62
1973	6,058	16,689	11,534	36	53
1990	6,871	23,214	15,988	30	43

They had a poor growth during these times, hence why most soviet republics turned into shitholes.

 

[AllanKing]

No, I didn't, if socialism doesn't work, communism is not achieved, then both are a failure.

No, they don't get rewards according to how much they work, that's capitalism, in socialism state owns everything and give the same for everyone, regardless of how much they produced. So what happens? People didn't have enough incentive to work and produce, that's what happened in USSR.

Collectivization in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 461789

They even manipulated data, and you can clearly see that USSR was a failure, that induced below average growth to its republics.

Year	USSR	United states	Western europe	USSR as a % of United States	USSR as a % of Western Europe
1820	689	1,257	1,232	55	56
1870	943	2,445	1,974	39	48
1913	1,488	5,301	3,473	28	43
1950	2,834	9,561	4,594	30	62
1973	6,058	16,689	11,534	36	53
1990	6,871	23,214	15,988	30	43

They had a poor growth during these times, hence why most soviet republics turned into shitholes.

View attachment 461791

you misunderstood socialism，under socialism you get what your work deserves，not everyone get exactly the same， you can look up about it.of course，the differences between incomes of different jobs are not so stark comparing to capitalist societies，the most important aspect of socialism is that capital belongs to country or communes，the exploitation of capitalists is abolished

 

[Deleted member 35296]

Seize the means of reproduction

 

[trying to ascend]

Monarchy is ideologically-based, like every system of government. The ruler has to prove his power is legitimate, by being chosen by the people, God, being "the first servant of the state" (Frederick the Great) etc.


That's not capitalism. In capitalism people get vast fortunes by simply being born in the right family and get rich by degeneracy and lying to customers. Capitalism currently enters the catabolic stage (look how capitalists destroy products selling too slowly just because it's more profitable - in the short term, because in the long term it's extremely harmful, Earth is finite and vulnerable).

Of course, I don't suggest that people get rewards according to their work in socialism.

Same applies to socialism, or you think the kids got nothing from their parents?

In capitalism you can get reward according to how much you work, in socialism you don't, since people get paid the same, regardless of production

 

[AllanKing]

Same applies to socialism, or you think the kids got nothing from their parents?

In capitalism you can get reward according to how much you work, in socialism you don't, since people get paid the same, regardless of production

you misunderstood socialism，under socialism you get what your work deserves，not everyone get exactly the same， you can look up about it.of course，the differences between incomes of different jobs are not so stark comparing to capitalist societies，the most important aspect of socialism is that capital belongs to country or communes，the exploitation of capitalists is abolished

 

[tacotown2142]

Monarchy is ideologically-based, like every system of government. The ruler has to prove his power is legitimate, by being chosen by the people, God, being "the first servant of the state" (Frederick the Great) etc.

That's not ideology. Fascism requires the state found itself on an ideological framework whereas most historical monarchies were simply founded on ethnic boundaries, not ideological frameworks. You can have two different monarchs in the same line with drastically different ideologies. A monarch is beholden more to the general welfare of the people while fascist rulers are beholden to the foundational ideology above the actual well-being of the people. Monarchism is the only sort of totalitarianism that has any kind of long-term stability.

 

[trying to ascend]

you misunderstood socialism，under socialism you get what your work deserves，not everyone get exactly the same， you can look up about it.of course，the differences between incomes of different jobs are not so stark comparing to capitalist societies，the most important aspect of socialism is that capital belongs to country or communes，the exploitation of capitalists is abolished

Explotation of capitalism is a thing that only exists when you see things through a marxist scope.

In capitalism you get what your works deserves, in socialism you get what the government wants to pay for you. Since incomes couldn't be much different, a bricklayer would get almost the same as a doctor, you think this is fair?

 

[AllanKing]

Explotation of capitalism is a thing that only exists when you see things through a marxist scope.

In capitalism you get what your works deserves, in socialism you get what the government wants to pay for you

I am surprised by you saying exploitation don't exist in capitalism，if you only refer to today's capitalism in western world，it may make some sense，but you think capitalism always like today's form?today's capitalism came into existence after hundreds of years class struggle and the conflicts between capitalism and socialism blocks
go to read what capitalism was like in 19th century and read 《21th century capital》 ，capitalism will commit astronomical evil without strict regulation and it has a natural tendency to monopoly and hereditarism
it is not fair for a bricklayer to get the same as a doctor，it is not consistent with socialist ideals.you can argue that Soviet union income distribution is not fair
but in a traditional capitalist society before world war，the top earners earn their money not for being a doctor or a scientist or etc，in fact they don't work，they are born to enjoy life，they get income through capital，most capital belongs to a selected few at that time，and majority of them get their capital through inheritance not hard work，is this your ideal society?
anyway， Marx is a great people who sympathize with the opressed

 

[trying to ascend]

I am surprised by you saying exploitation don't exist in capitalism，if you only refer to today's capitalism in western world，it may make some sense，but you think capitalism always like today's form?today's capitalism came into existence after hundreds of years class struggle and the conflicts between capitalism and socialism blocks
go to read what capitalism was like in 19th century and read 《21th century capital》 ，capitalism will commit astronomical evil without strict regulation and it has a natural tendency to monopoly and hereditarism

I never said capitalism is perfect and that government regulation is not necesssary, I myself believe that government should develop national industry (by giving subsides to companies, like china), tax imported/foreign products, help people during crysis and etc.

What I'm trying to say is that capitalism works, and socialism doesn't, since socialism is just an ideology that when put in an empirical test, fails. An ideology itself can't predict everything that happens in the real world, thats why socialism fails badly. Capitalism didn't start existing as an ideology, but just as an economic system who was result of other past events, even though this doesn't mean market failures don't exist. Reality will not mold itself for socialism, but events in reality lead to the existence of capitalism.

Explotation isn't caused by capitalism itself, but by more powerful/rich countries controlling and exploiting other poorer/weaker countries, and this happened in socialism. This doesn't mean explotation doesn't exist in capitalism, but that it isn't caused by capitalism

 

[Deleted member 35171]

Yes it can.

 

[AllanKing]

I never said capitalism is perfect and that government regulation is not necesssary, I myself believe that government should develop national industry (by giving subsides to companies, like china), tax imported/foreign products, help people during crysis and etc.

What I'm trying to say is that capitalism works, and socialism doesn't, since socialism is just an ideology that when put in an empirical test, fails. An ideology itself can't predict everything that happens in the real world, thats why socialism fails badly. Capitalism didn't start existing as an ideology, but just as an economic system who was result of other past events, even though this doesn't mean market failures don't exist. Reality will not mold itself for socialism, but events in reality lead to the existence of capitalism.

Explotation isn't caused by capitalism itself, but by more powerful/rich countries controlling and exploiting other poorer/weaker countries, and this happened in socialism. This doesn't mean explotation doesn't exist in capitalism, but that it isn't caused by capitalism

exploitation exists in capital system，the capitalists exploit workers through controling the means of production

go to read what capitalism was like in 19th century england and read 《21th century capital》 ，capitalism will commit astronomical evil without strict regulation and it has a natural tendency to monopoly and hereditarism
it is not fair for a bricklayer to get the same as a doctor，it is not consistent with socialist ideals.you can argue that Soviet union income distribution is not fair
but in a traditional capitalist society before world war，the top earners earn their money not for being a doctor or a scientist or etc，in fact they don't work，they are born to enjoy life，they get income through capital，most capital belongs to a selected few at that time，and vast majority of them get their capital through inheritance not hard work，maybe you think you could be the selected few if you think exploitation don't exist?in traditional capitalism society don't put too much imagination on getting rich through hardwork，it is about inheritance and marriage，find a heir and marry her，it is how poor men get rich before two world wars
anyway， Marx is a great people who sympathize with the opressed

 

[trying to ascend]

exploitation exists in capital system，the capitalists exploit workers through controling the means of production

Never said it doesn't exist, but it isn't in that way, its in a way where rich countries keep poor countries poor, and use them as a way to get cheap labor.

Explotation still exist in socialism, as I said, richer republics were benefited from poorer soviet republics.

exploitation exists in capital system，the capitalists exploit workers through controling the means of production

go to read what capitalism was like in 19th century england and read 《21th century capital》 ，capitalism will commit astronomical evil without strict regulation and it has a natural tendency to monopoly and hereditarism

Already responded that. Also, england life quallity increased a after and during industrial revolution:

it is not fair for a bricklayer to get the same as a doctor，it is not consistent with socialist ideals.you can argue that Soviet union income distribution is not fair
but in a traditional capitalist society before world war，the top earners earn their money not for being a doctor or a scientist or etc，in fact they don't work，they are born to enjoy life，they get income through capital，most capital belongs to a selected few at that time，and vast majority of them get their capital through inheritance not hard work，maybe you think you could be the selected few if you think exploitation don't exist?in traditional capitalism society don't put too much imagination on getting rich through hardwork，it is about inheritance and marriage，find a heir and marry her，it is how poor men get rich before two world wars
anyway， Marx is a great people who sympathize with the opressed

Yes, its consistent, since government will just provide what people need, regardless of their job. I already showed an example of how it worked in USSR, farmers who produced more got paid the same as farmers who produced less, then production started declining, since they had not incentive to continue producing.

They get a bigger income than those who work in the company, because they are the ones who provide their machines for the workers to produce more, and they are the ones [UWSL]give up their money in the present, to expect to receive a larger amount in the future, therefore they are expected to get more money than they had in the present (temporal preference), they also have the risk of not receiving their money back. So this risk and [UWSL]uncertainty, is also one of the things that make the bosses get more money than their employees. Also, they spend far more money than their employees do, so its expected for them to get more money. You don't need to do the physical work to get money in nowadays capitalism. Also, 50% of US companies go bankrupt in the first 5 years of existence, therefore its false that bosses will always get a lot of money.[/UWSL][/UWSL]

Yes, and in socialism, sons of politicians will get money of their parents, hence why russia has so many rich oligarchs

 

[AllanKing]

Never said it doesn't exist, but it isn't in that way, its in a way where rich countries keep poor countries poor, and use them as a way to get cheap labor.

Explotation still exist in socialism, as I said, richer republics were benefited from poorer soviet republics.


Already responded that. Also, england life quallity increased a after and during industrial revolution: View attachment 461832


Yes, its consistent, since government will just provide what people need, regardless of their job. I already showed an example of how it worked in USSR, farmers who produced more got paid the same as farmers who produced less, then production started declining, since they had not incentive to continue producing.

They get a bigger income than those who work in the company, because they are the ones who provide their machines for the workers to produce more, and they are the ones [UWSL]give up their money in the present, to expect to receive a larger amount in the future, therefore they are expected to get more money than they had in the present (temporal preference), they also have the risk of not receiving their money back. So this risk and [UWSL]uncertainty, is also one of the things that make the bosses get more money than their employees. Also, they spend far more money than their employees do, so its expected for them to get more money. You don't need to do the physical work to get money in nowadays capitalism. Also, 50% of US companies go bankrupt in the first 5 years of existence, therefore its false that bosses will always get a lot of money.[/UWSL][/UWSL]

Yes, and in socialism, sons of politicians will get money of their parents, hence why russia has so many rich oligarchs

what? Russia has so many rich oligarchys because they got money from their parents? idiot arguement， they got money from the corpse of Soviet union，in Soviet union no one could get that rich

socialism tries to meet people's needs， but its principle is give people what their work deserves，only in communist society when material is overabundant can people get all their needs for free

also I don't want to defend socialism，but to rebute your "exploitation don't exist in capitalism" argument，and at this point you just completely bypass my points about capitalism，because you can't counter my arguments， capitalism when not intervened has a strong tendency to create a hereditarian society where rich people are born to enjoy life，thus using entrepreneurship to defend it can't stand， historical data has illustrated this very well，only period your arguments defending capitalists stand are post world war 2

even workers' living conditions improved a little during industrial revolution because workers could share a little of wealth created by society it neither proves capitalism isn't evil nor justify "exploitation doesnot exist" argument

after collapse of Soviet union-eastern Europe block，now hereditarian capitalism seems is sneaking back，especially in America，America is turning a capitalist shithole imho，of course China is also a capitalism shithole

in China，if a person is not a capitalist but speaks like you，people will call him spiritual capitalist not knowing where his bottom sits

 

[trying to ascend]

what? Russia has so many rich oligarchys because they got money from their parents? idiot arguement， they got money from the corpse of Soviet union，in Soviet union no one could get that rich

socialism tries to meet people's needs， but its principle is give people what their work deserves，only in communist society when material is overabundant can people get all their needs for free

also I don't want to defend socialism，but to rebute your "exploitation don't exist in capitalism" argument，and at this point you just completely bypass my points about capitalism，because you can't counter my arguments， capitalism when not intervened has a strong tendency to create a hereditarian society where rich people are born to enjoy life，thus using entrepreneurship to defend it can't stand， historical data has illustrated this very well，only period your arguments defending capitalists stand are post world war 2

even workers' living conditions improved a little during industrial revolution because workers could share a little of wealth created by society it neither proves capitalism isn't evil nor justify "exploitation doesnot exist" argument

after collapse of Soviet union-eastern Europe block，now hereditarian capitalism seems is sneaking back，especially in America，America is turning a capitalist shithole imho，of course China is also a capitalism shithole

in China，if a person is not a capitalist but speaks like you，people will call him spiritual capitalist not knowing where his bottom sits

View attachment 461840

Stop with the strawmens ffs, I never said exploration doesn’t exist.

Yes, they got money from the government without doing nothing, I just used parents as a comparison. No, officials were rich in USSR.

No, principle of socialism is equality, and how can you define how much a work price is? Because prices in socialism are controlled by the state, so how can you say one job is more valuable and the others? And how can you avoid scarce if the government is the one who controls the prices? Because if government set a price X, and this not meet the offer, this will cause scarce.

“Also, I don’t want to defend socialism”, that’s literally what you were doing this whole time, and you literally created a strawmen and started a debate over it.

All your arguments are already countered point by point, you are coming up with nothing new.

Yes, I never said capitalism without interventions is good and that it doesn’t create monopolies, cartels and etc, so I don’t know why you keep coming up with it.

I used historial data to prove that capitalism works, but I already stated that I think the correct type of capitalism is the one in a national developmentalist perspective, which is not the wild capitalism you are referring to.

Yes, capitalism is not evil, if we are starting a moral debate, then we should set what evil is. Explotation exists inside capitalism, but it’s not a cause of capitalism, that’s what I already said before.

“America is turning into a shithole”, any proof? China is a shithole because of capitalism? Proof? I really want to see something that you prove your claims.

China is just a capitalist state with socialist aspects, same go for US, both are mixed economies, that’s why I don’t get why you blame specifically capitalism.

Communism is not about abundant resources, but about a gradual state where state is need less and less, because equality is becoming possible, not because resources became abundant

 

[AllanKing]

Stop with the strawmens ffs, I never said exploration doesn’t exist.

Yes, they got money from the government without doing nothing, I just used parents as a comparison. No, officials were rich in USSR.

No, principle of socialism is equality, and how can you define how much a work price is? Because prices in socialism are controlled by the state, so how can you say one job is more valuable and the others? And how can you avoid scarce if the government is the one who controls the prices? Because if government set a price X, and this not meet the offer, this will cause scarce.

“Also, I don’t want to defend socialism”, that’s literally what you were doing this whole time, and you literally created a strawmen and started a debate over it.

All your arguments are already countered point by point, you are coming up with nothing new.

Yes, I never said capitalism without interventions is good and that it doesn’t create monopolies, cartels and etc, so I don’t know why you keep coming up with it.

I used historial data to prove that capitalism works, but I already stated that I think the correct type of capitalism is the one in a national developmentalist perspective, which is not the wild capitalism you are referring to.

Yes, capitalism is not evil, if we are starting a moral debate, then we should set what evil is. Explotation exists inside capitalism, but it’s not a cause of capitalism, that’s what I already said before.

“America is turning into a shithole”, any proof? China is a shithole because of capitalism? Proof? I really want to see something that you prove your claims.

China is just a capitalist state with socialist aspects, same go for US, both are mixed economies, that’s why I don’t get why you blame specifically capitalism.

Communism is not about abundant resources, but about a gradual state where state is need less and less, because equality is becoming possible, not because resources became abundant

I never attacked a strawman，yes，you agreed exploitation exists，but you only agreed it exists between countries but not exists in the system，I believe exploitation is innate in the system at least in most capitalist timeline，for example before world wars.

officials in Soviet union had many privileges， but still economic inequality was very small back then，officials couldn't get as rich as capitalists，oligarchys got rich because they got state owned companies and resources at extremely low prices after Soviet union collapsed

at first I just said everyone gets exactly the same isn't the principle of socialism，you misunderstood it，through in reality many people can't get what their work deserves doesnot mean this isn't the principle of socialism.Stalin style socialism failed because the innate difficulties you mentioned， I never said Stalin style socialism works，also I never said capitalism doesn't work

my main arguments is against your "exploitation only exists between countries" argument，I don't agree， I think exploitation is an innate part of capitalism at least for most of its history，whether capitalism works or not is irrelevant at this point

inequality in America has skyrocketed since 80s， now America policies are heavily influenced by big capitalists，big capitalists get every policy good for them in expense of ordinary people
China was a socialist shithole before 1978 because Stalin style socialism didnot work，but now it is a capitalist shithole just like America，rich people can get unimaginably rich，inequality skyrockets and class stratification starts，China isn't a shithole because of capitalism but China is a capitaliatic shithole because of capitalism

according to Marx，communism is the full developed stage of socialism where material wealth is super abundant， people get what they need for free ,contribute what they can do.

socialism is initial stage of communism with limited productivity， because productivity in socialist society is limited thus people have to work to get what they need，the more you contribute， the more you get，this is the income allocation principle in socialist society because material wealth is not abundant

I blame capitalism specifically because Stalin style socialism is already dead，there is no need to criticize a dead corpse，nowadays most problems are caused by capitalism，thus it needs to be seen through a critical lens，it works doesnot prove it is a good system，only a less evil system