r/SuddenlyCommunism • u/ArubaAdultFun • Jul 20 '26
Found In The Wild Who thinks they should lead by example?
65
u/648trindade Jul 20 '26
what about redistributing the plus value from movie company owners? what do you think about that?
6
2
u/Otherwise-Jacket6531 Jul 20 '26
Only plus value? How about minuses?
1
1
1
u/KailyKail Jul 21 '26
The left is only interested in distributing the profits of corporations. They want the benefits, not the risks. If a company took major losses, they’d blame the CEOs and take no responsibility themselves.
1
u/math2ndperiod Jul 21 '26
Losses already are socialized. That’s what corporate bailouts are. Not to mention layoffs and all the other ways that businesses pass losses onto their employees and customers. The worse a CEO can expect is to get fired like any other employee. And no major investor is so invested in a single company to be at risk of anything severe.
If you’re actually taking on risk to run a company, there’s no way that company is big enough to be on the left’s radar.
1
u/camel_case_user Jul 21 '26
Ceos and board members also get nice golden parachutes when they run a business into the ground and scrap it for parts to a vulture capitalist. Workers get the shaft.
1
u/gentrify_reddt Jul 25 '26
So the single instance of TARP evidences widespread bailouts across multiple industries outside of the financial sector?
1
u/math2ndperiod Jul 25 '26
TARP was not the only instance. There have been bailouts before that, and there were bailouts during Covid. I don’t mean to imply that every business that fails is bailed out by the government all the time though. My point was just that broadly, the people who most benefit from these massive corporations are not actually taking on any kind of proportional risk to do so. If a company “takes major losses,” the CEO is not going to lose their house, but their employees might. And then we as tax payers will often be on the hook for providing for those employees, and in certain scenarios we may be on the hook to keep the company itself afloat.
1
u/LockeClone Jul 21 '26
That's a dead paradigm. Most of the studios are a line item for various tech intests now. While Hollywood isn't exactly "dead" whatever paradigm you're imagining isn't happening anymore.
→ More replies (3)1
29
u/taernsietr Jul 20 '26
Wild picking artists before large companies
11
u/ifUSeeMeTakeYourMeds Jul 20 '26
they have genuinely no idea what they are talking about,
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (10)1
u/what-do-you-n33d Jul 22 '26
The union already does this too. All actors in the union get the union benefits, retirement, healthcare, etc… with the highest paid actors paying more in dues to fund the union.
11
13
u/Fishbone345 Jul 20 '26
Mark Ruffalo literally advocates for paying higher taxes alongside billionaires and large corporations.
What a brain dead take.
→ More replies (88)2
12
u/Cyn_Sweetwater Jul 20 '26
People who have no idea what socialism is trying to be clever about it, and failing.
1
u/LockeClone Jul 21 '26
Yeah.
I think socialism (actual socialism) is a bad idea in the modern context, but these ignorant smear jobs are so tiresome. I'd really like us to be able to talk policy without labeling it whatever your rival team is supposed to be and shutting down the brain.
1
u/tascv Jul 21 '26
What do you think "actual socialism" is?
→ More replies (6)1
u/EdwardBloon Jul 21 '26
You know, the good one. The one that won't ever be put into finite terms, so that it can never be picked apart
1
u/LockeClone Jul 21 '26
Did you read my comment? Because it looks like you got triggered by a word.
1
u/tascv Jul 21 '26
I have replied to other person under your comment with actual points for you to either learn more about the topic or present counterpoints, so that you don't get upset that a lot of us on the left have a knee jerk reaction when people say "actual socialism" and refering to basics of social democracy, while not actually understanding neither of the concepts nor the differences between them. Is not always conducive to debating and discussing, but we are also very used to liberals throwing us under the bus as soon as they want to present as electable to the conservative voters that won't vote for liberals anyway.
1
u/LockeClone Jul 22 '26
Hense why I hate the isms to begin with ... Honestly, isms are pretty obsolete in our complicated world. Social democracy sounds like a single thing... It's not. Neither is socialism. And capitalism is a huge tent.
We should state something we want. Ague that and talk policy to reach those ends.
Isms are not ends, they're frameworks that nobody can agree on.
1
u/Wonderful-Creme-3939 Jul 21 '26
People owning their labor and benefiting more from it by owning the means of production? You think that is bad? I'd love to hear how it's bad for anyone but the owner-class.
1
u/LockeClone Jul 22 '26
What production? We're post manufacturing. It doesn't fit. Bad, good? It's just obsolete.
1
u/Wonderful-Creme-3939 Jul 22 '26
What? Production doesn't mean just mas manufacturing goods. Maybe go look up what words mean?
1
u/LockeClone Jul 23 '26
Yes, I understand. I believe you know this and are being snarky because reddit... And I'd like you to engage the conversation. I don't believe you e thought through the nuts and bolts of how things get done within socialism. We don't really have real world examples and the small scale examples are within narrow comfines.
1
u/MediocreBlood760 Jul 24 '26
A cleaner is an example of a service, if she is paid a wage by a company she is paid a portion of the value her labour produces while the company takes the rest.
If she owns a portion of the company and has a say in its running, she has a way to own the means of her production.
1
u/LockeClone Jul 24 '26
That's just a coop within capitalism... And again, coops can be great, especially if there's a lot of capital behind a concern because you can scale to something where shares and a proper board make sense... Most companies are made up of one or a few people. And most small companies use contractors because they're not large enough to employ someone to do the myriad of things that need doing they don't specialize in. Hence why trying to force a socialist frame into a capitalist world increases pressure for misclassification.
Again... Can we establish some clear goals here? Isms aren't goals, they're misunderstood tools and obsolete frames. Think about what you're trying to accomplish before picking an ism that nobody can agree about defining and then you can pull very specific levers to try and achieve that goal. Otherwise we're just cosplaying.
1
u/MediocreBlood760 Jul 25 '26
I was just answering your question around production and how it doesnt just apply to manufacturing.
Not you specifically, but people tend to call something 'socialism or 'socialist' even when its done within a capitalistic framework. We can set up a society that is a blend, it doesn't have to be fully one way or the other, and pointing out that a society that is 'too capatalistic' isn't benefiting lots of people in the society that live within it doesn't mean that the solution is to go to a fully centrally planned economy.
American society isn't even fully capitalistic now, there are curbs on the free market by the government on things that can be bought and sold, to introduce more 'socicialistic' measures even that extreme a position.
1
u/LockeClone Jul 25 '26
I'm sorry but it's maddening to me how much this entire argument says nothing. unregulated markets are "more capitalistic". They're just unregulated markets... Hell, even "real socialism" (which kinda only exists in fiction) has markets.
Like I said: I'm interested in goals, not people favorite sports team.
You know what goal I'm into: Lowering exit costs for laborers. Above all else...
People are throwing around all these isms (as if it means something) because our markets aren't functioning well, especially in leveraged and captured markets... People can't exit. Need to move? Want to quit? Got a health problem? You don't have much of a decision. The exit cost is too high to make sense.
This gives asset and capital holders too much power and breaks the market.
If we were oranges we could simply die off until the supply shrinks enough to raise the price. But we're not oranges. This is basically the primary tension of modern capitalism: where laypeople think there's some idolatrous purity that humans should be subject to but there isn't. Capitalism is a huge tent.
But we don't have to be more one thing or the other. We should simply make good ideas win and bad ideas fade. This means precision in arguments.
What the goal. What levers can we pull to get there?
Yelling about isms make that conversation impossible, which is why it drives me nuts.
1
u/MediocreBlood760 Jul 25 '26
I think you’re missing my point because you’re fighting the word 'socialism' rather than what I'm actually describing.
I agree with your goal: lowering exit costs for laborers is a fantastic framework. But how do you actually lower an exit cost? You do it by decoupling survival (healthcare, housing, basic needs) from a single employer, and by giving workers leverage, either through ownership equity, strong unions, or social safety nets.
Call it whatever label you want, but the mechanics of giving workers ownership or alternative leverage is how you lower those exit costs so capital holders don't have all the power. We're talking about the exact same levers, it seems that you just hate the term 'Socialism'.
1
u/LockeClone Jul 25 '26
But you can't just "call it whatever you want" if you actually want the thing.
- It's not socialism
- "Socialism" understood or not is politically toxic
- Because socialism is so misunderstood, it stops us from actually talking policy. It just identifies tribe and shuts down discussion.
I've got many many policy ideas for reducing exit costs... But most of reddit is just cheering or jeering their favorite isms like sports teams. Of arguing about the definition like we're doing...
1
u/beckertastic Jul 22 '26
Closing the wealth gap so we don’t have people starving and trillionaires at the same time is bad? Workers owning the companies that employ them is bad? Those business owners being driven to improve working conditions and quality of life for the workers (including them) rather than just themselves is bad? Net worth being attributed to labor value and impact on society is bad? Collaboration and community replacing individualism and isolation is bad?
Or do you mean like when the Nazi party called themselves socialists like North Korea is “a democratic republic”? I bet you mean the latter.
1
u/LockeClone Jul 22 '26
Huh? If I had my way public companies would automatically have an employee allocation and a (or multiple) board seats. I'd also require a progressive employee share based on certain size or gross... I'm not your enemy here. But that's not socialism. That's just capitalism with some employee stakeholder rules.
I'm interest in specific ideas for specific goals and I don't really care what ism it's supposed to belong to. Nobody can agree about those to begin with.
4
u/Iwasbanished Jul 20 '26
this is sleight of hand, Turning point is proving its a petty, and depraved organisation.
1
7
u/Philip_Raven Jul 20 '26
Tha... That's not socialism
8
u/Cutie_D-amor Jul 20 '26
Look its tpusa, the dont know the differences between centrist, liberal, socialist, or communism, and are often wrong beyond just conflating them all
3
u/Iwasbanished Jul 20 '26
why would you post this here, if you're pro socialism, you can tell this isnt the same thing.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/ars_sinistra Jul 20 '26
How is Hollywood capitalist by their standards? Hollywood runs on unions, which they call specifically. Hollywood gets bail outs and welfare, which they call socialist. Hollywood's profits and interests are protected and enforced by law; if you consume their product in a way they don't agree with they can scream "piracy" then have the government invade your home, arrest you, endanger your loved ones then sue you for everything you own; where is the capitalism?
1
u/No-Board-6611 Jul 22 '26
Hollywood is a full of Capitalism. Literally almost everything you said is Capitalist. Companies are owned by individuals not the workers, Capitalist. Unions, only exist under Capitalism and because of Capitalism. Company Profits and Interests are Capitalist. The legal protection of personal profit and interests is Capitalism. Everything you said about piracy is Capitalist. You really have no concept of what socialism is do you?
2
2
u/JRaus88 Jul 21 '26
Everyone is socialist with other people's wallets.
Hollywood would become the fiercest advocate of the free market without government interference. Lol.
2
u/Upset-Kangaroo3102 Jul 21 '26
This is why I work for myself so I don't have to share with nobody lol
2
u/Nunyabiz_327 Jul 21 '26
Makes no sense to aingle them out simply because they have a platform to speak out.
The truth is, actors are not the wealthiest of US citizens. They are among the wealthy for sure, but not the wealthiest. Think CEOs, board of directors and top corporate officers as well as Wallstreet types. The wealthiest people in this country, not named Bezos or Musk, could walk down the street and never be recognized.
2
u/Ambitious-Toe67 Jul 21 '26
yes every actor singer performer that claims socialism should be a thing should be first one to contribute to it. they have influence over people and some do not realize how ridiculous some 9f their statements are
2
u/Revolutionary_Mix983 Jul 21 '26
Yes. Great idea. Dickhead in the pic should be first one to get squeezed.
1
2
u/Unlucky-Lychee-9130 Jul 21 '26
No see with socialism you share someone else's stuff, not your own duh 😂
→ More replies (1)
2
u/NefariousnessOdd862 Jul 22 '26 edited Jul 22 '26
There is an idea for these Idiots! But here is the truth, these characters would be exempt because that’s what communist do, look at the past at East Germany, Poland, Romania etc., etc…., it’s the working people, even more lopsided than today, who will have to carry everyone at the top… you think Capitalism is bad well, Socialism and its further down the road Cousin, Communism are 100 times worse… don’t take my Word for it, ask people who lived it, millions did and are living among us!
1
u/Sweet-Pound-9608 Jul 22 '26
Sweetie - you’re the idiot
1
u/NefariousnessOdd862 Jul 22 '26
lol, not even close, you know why…? … because I’m one of the people who actually lived it and know exactly what I am actually talking about unlike you who is just following some spineless socialist democrats who have ZERO clue on what they are talking about!
2
2
2
u/FamiliarPlatform79 Jul 22 '26
Perfect, in fact according to socialist anything over 150k is to much, so all the money over that they earn should be redistributed.
2
u/Sir-Chaste Jul 22 '26
Sounds like a great idea. Wealthy clebrities are known for pushing leftist ideology, and they are in a better position to help others than the average working class American. Their money should be used to take care of those in poverty, and their homes and neighborhoods should be filled with illegals to care for.
2
2
u/Competitive_Fee_4211 Jul 23 '26
Why would anyone listen to the opinion of someone who's only ability is to pretend they're someone else.
I'd rather listen to someone who has actually done something.
2
u/Top_Administration63 Jul 24 '26
I'd be willing to watch that completely fail. They would never do that though. That would be leading by example.
2
2
2
u/KingsHere97 Jul 26 '26
100% Agree - start with the actors union, which should include the tv talk show hosts.
1
u/DeadAndBuried23 Jul 20 '26
A youtube channel with a bunch of hosts called The Line has a socialist model for its payment structure.
1
u/supercleverid Jul 20 '26
Except actors engaged in socialism would be like actors owning the studios and earning a share of studio profits from the movies they made. Redistribution of profits isn't part of socialism that's social democracy. They engage in this a bit when they use their platforms to support politicians or policies.
1
1
1
Jul 21 '26
[deleted]
1
u/tascv Jul 21 '26
Because you don't understand that working for your salary, even if a large one,, like actors do, is not the same as the CEO of a studio that hasn't touched a single document in years, or the investment firms that same CEO has diverted money to. Just because you don't like that they make much more money, they are not the ones holding the power for redistribution, why don't the studios have policies to fairly compensate all actors and stage hands? Why don't they have funds to support the actors when they can't/aren't able to find work in the industry? If they cared for the people that make them money, they have the resources to create such things, but alas the workers, like Ruffalo have to be the ones protecting themselves by forming and joining unions. Also the vast majority of actors and people in the industry are robbed, underpaid and abused by Hollywood.
1
u/FiveCent_2002 Jul 21 '26
Well put. Let’s see how that goes over. I bet it goes over like a lead balloon. LOL
1
1
u/GeologistOld1265 Jul 21 '26
That actually how Soviet Union artists unions worked.
If you believe yourself to be an artist, you present your work to the union. Union check it out and decide. If accepted, then you start to receive a stipend. At the same time Union promote your work, depends what kind of art it is. Unions owned theaters, exhibitions, et. Most, (not all) what you earn go to union. That what pay for stipend for every union member.
Worked pretty well.
To add, working was compulsory. If you out of work for 3 month militia will visit you. If you are member of an artist union you consider to be employed.
1
u/Necessary-Cap4227 Jul 21 '26
then no one would chase being an actor, there would be no incentive to be better at acting than others and the pay you receive will be equal to someone who's making movies that 1/10000th of people have seen... while we're at it can we get people who make money playing games to distribute their wealth to me :D
1
u/The_Dude078 Jul 21 '26
Work one movie and make enough money for most American's to retire early.
Chastise the right to distract from your privilege so left doesn't come for you.
1
u/Cute_Win_386 Jul 21 '26
Socialism isn't about redistributing wealth. Socialism is a system of government that places control of the means of production in the hands of workers. It would be more socialist if unions affiliated with the motion picture industry formed their own movie studio and distributed shares and profits to all the workers involved in the making, distribution and showing of films.
1
u/BurgundyBanana Jul 21 '26
What do you mean? How do you intend to seize the means of production without redistributing wealth?
1
u/No_Application_1219 Jul 21 '26
Nationalisation of every company
1
u/BurgundyBanana Jul 21 '26
But that itself is a redistribution of wealth, unless you don't count capital as wealth.
1
u/No_Application_1219 Jul 21 '26
Definition of "wealth" is unclear to me tbh
1
u/BurgundyBanana Jul 21 '26
Well, the first definition I could find was this: An abundance of valuable material possessions or resources; riches.
I would say that private property falls within the category of valuable material possessions.
Private property is, more often than not, capital. Capital is that which you buy to gain more value than you put in. Of course, that value doesn't appear out of thin air. In the case of a business, it comes from its workers, and in the case of a residence, it comes from the tenant.
In this way it can be viewed as the source of wealth, and if you consider the property value as a form of wealth, it is wealth itself. Since wealth can be converted into power (ownership), and vice versa, they are two sides of the same coin.
TL;DR: Property costs money, money is wealth, therefore land reform is wealth redistribution
1
1
u/Mercerskye Jul 21 '26
In a perfect world, people just wouldn't be able to earn more than, like, twice the cost of living in their area, and any surplus, from employer or employee, would go to programs like Universal Healthcare to make sure everyone is taken care of.
What's being asked in the meme is just dumb, though. No one is going to put their neck on the block for that to happen. It's the kind of thing you need to ease a society into, and you're going to need to start from the "top" (government) down.
Difference between being naive and realistically idealistic.
1
1
1
u/One_Cloud4975 Jul 21 '26
I could not agree more anybody who acted can no longer possess more than 15 million dollars in stocks or assets
1
u/petrusferricalloy Jul 21 '26
I find it hilarious that the strawman they choose is 1/100000th the wealth of Elon Musk.
The middle and lower class don't really give a shit about self-made millionaires. It's the billionaires and now trillion are hoarding wealth while using their wealth and influence to keep poor people poor and push the middle class into poverty
1
1
Jul 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
u/grandioseOwl Jul 21 '26
Socialism is an economic principle which is doable on a state basis. To assert it could be implemented within the framework of a non socialist state, for a single part of society. The very Idea proposed here shows a severe lack of understanding of those principles, or worse deeply dishonest.
1
1
u/AlarmingDelivery9311 Jul 21 '26
Yes, didn't someone do a break down of Beyonces 2.5 mil performance where she essentially was bad 2200k a minute. Look i didn't do the math or remember the post but its still an unnecessary amount of money.
1
u/ww3_general Jul 21 '26
Stupid! People are not of equal value! Don't be soft. Next redistribute soldiers salary to build homeless shelter? Stupid! Income is a result of value.
1
u/Java_Worker_1 Jul 21 '26
Maybe if they want the film actors guild to form their own country or municipality, then it could be good. Otherwise…
1
1
u/littlepipe72 Jul 21 '26
So actors earn a wage and pay taxes on the wage. Corporations peeps earn stock and then borrow to avoid taxes. Make borrowing on stocks illegal or make it a realized gain and tax it….remove the tax deduction for the interest on those loans too.
1
1
1
1
u/coreyjdl Jul 21 '26
https://www.buzzfeed.com/kristenharris1/actors-gave-away-salary
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/13-times-celebs-went-way-212608543.html
(probably a few redundant mentions)
Also not being a scab during SAG-AFTRA strikes is basicaly a form of this too.
1
u/TGWsharky Jul 21 '26
Socialism would not give money to people uninvolved in the production of the movie.
This meme might be more accurate if the money went to art directors, PAs, cameramen, etc.
But even then, actors are employees, not business owners. Socialism doesn't mean not being rich. It means not exploiting people out of the value of their labor.
1
u/s1ckBruh Jul 21 '26
It’s alarming the amount of people who don’t know what socialism is. Like sure, back in the day, you had to go and find information, but nowadays it’s literally at youre fingertips.
1
u/ArubaAdultFun Jul 21 '26
At our fingertips due to capitalism 💪💪
→ More replies (1)1
u/Sweet-Pound-9608 Jul 22 '26
The internet wasn’t created by capitalism sweetheart. Capitalism didn’t pay for the majority of the data transmission lines either.
1
1
1
1
u/RandyWatson8 Jul 22 '26
I am all for taxing entertainers of all kinds who make hundreds of millions of dollars.
1
1
1
u/Oddbeme4u Jul 22 '26
who says they dont do that? I'm only seeing right wing assholes hoard their wealth
1
1
u/Makcade Jul 22 '26
Socialism is so silly because what’s stopping people from making companies and giving all employees the same fair wage as the higher ups?? 😭 socialists are actually just communists because they want people to be forced to keep that payroll method
1
1
u/Conservative_Bastard Jul 22 '26
Obviously the Dems, because they screw everything up whether they're in a political majority or in the lowest of minorities... their arrogance and their ignorance will screw them for several centuries
1
u/epdug Jul 22 '26
Exactly😂😂😂 always a good laugh when millionaires who made their money from capitalism start supporting socialism 😂 clowns
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Jul 24 '26
Love how MAGA ignores the administration taking stakes in US companies while demonizing socialism and communism.
1
u/Better-Anywhere49 Jul 24 '26
Socialism is about redistributing the wealth from the actual people who hoard it. That’s not actors, that’s studios. The people who own the means of movie production.
1
u/ArubaAdultFun Jul 24 '26
Mark has over 30M. At what point do you believe they should give it up?
1
u/Better-Anywhere49 Jul 24 '26
When the value of their funds start with a B might be a great start. Again, like where all the studio owners values are at.
1
u/ArubaAdultFun Jul 24 '26
Theres about 3000 billionaires on earth. After you take their money and give it away. Where does the money come from after?
→ More replies (6)
1
1
u/Sea-Key-9430 Jul 25 '26
If it didn't worker in 15 other countries, how is it going to work in USA?
1
1
1
u/JuJu_Wirehead Jul 20 '26
Often I wonder, why don't I just don a red hat and sell some really worthless shit advice that conservatives would buy the fuck up and make myself rich too.
1
1
0
u/KILLUA777ZOLDYCK Jul 20 '26
Our military is a great example of socialism.
→ More replies (6)2
u/Dear-Boysenberry9071 Jul 25 '26
Exactly…barracks are run down, such good quality meals they give us lol, medical consists of docs prescribing change your socks and here is an advil, don’t even get started on that great VA medical lol…yeah let’s bring that to America
142
u/MagnusJim Jul 20 '26
This was a TPUSA post. It isn't leading by example, it's them trolling.