Emi

The crux of your difficulty in comprehending this matter lies in the fundamental nature of capitalism, which revolves around safeguarding capital and prioritizing the interests of those who possess the most of it. On the contrary, socialism can be described as a framework that aims to protect the collective welfare and well-being of the people. Within a capitalist system, your capital can manifest as partial or complete ownership of a company, legal entity, or parcel of land, enabling you to generate profits solely by virtue of your ownership rather than the value of your labor. Conversely, individuals who earn a living are typically employed within these enterprises, legal entities, or on the aforementioned land. Due to the absence of worker ownership, significant portions of the value generated by these workers are effectively appropriated without any commensurate compensation (profits represent the value pilfered from workers). While one system artificially bolsters the position of capital owners, the other seeks to rectify the inherent disparity stemming from capital ownership.

Or to simplify using your phrasing: In one system, someone always gets out on top; the other lifts a collective good.

Except when it is school shootings or climate change driven, then a large portion of the country sees the US on this map shift to brown.

That’s a weird take, Marxists are not a monolith… they obviously haven’t seen !leftistinfighting@lemmygrad.ml. Then when it comes to stances on China there is a spectrum of support on many various issues. What’s more is history has proven that the “west” has a history of misrepresenting and lying about their adversaries.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/14/secret-british-black-propaganda-campaign-targeted-cold-war-enemies-information-research-department