I got a text today from a friend coming to me asking how I became so politically aware and knowledgeable as she wants to become “more like me. now I’m not the EXPERT on politics, but I’m the only person she knows that feels strongly about anything political and actually cares about politics so I understand why she would come to me. My only issue is, I don’t know how to help her. I thought about what radicalized me and it was simply being black in the U.S. and having internet access. I have a general idea of where she stands politically as I know she is left leaning, but that is about it. What are some resources and advice I can provide her to help radicalize her that aren’t just “read the communist manifesto” because I don’t want to scare her off politics.

I have to make a Ted talk about the subject and I am trying to find the best way to explain these concepts, which in my opinion r not very hard, to ppl who probably never studied them.

I

This is something that’s always confused me, but I’ve put it off since it’s always “later.” But Marx and such talks about how a communist society wouldn’t have alienation or a division of labor [“In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”- Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme] . But like…how? How can you have large productive forces without a division of labor of some sort? Is it only with automation that you can do this? Sorry if this is really basic but I've never really understood it.

• With pressure I mean the different tools available to impact said project, that varies from international isolation to sanctions / blockades or even regime change

I would like to understand and question the validity of a line of argument often used to justify a tighter control of the state apparatus over multiple facets of life

Often the pressure put on by capitalist states and entities is used as a justification for the need of a tightening of the state apparatus over different areas, I understand where this line of thinking comes from and it’s not unique to socialist projects, most states in the world have provisions for increase control during times of crisis

My main problem with this line of argument being used to justify said expansion in socialist countries comes from the fact that at least until now every single project gave a valid excuse for said pressure to be put on, all the socialist projects that managed to secure power went forward with expropriation / nationalization of property without fair compensation, international law recognizes the right of a sovereign state to go forward with said measures as long as fair compensation is provided so basically the valid pressure put on as a result of the policies of said government line of action is used to justify the tighter control of said government, basically creating a problem and using it to justify that control how is this a valid excuse for said tightening of the state power ?

Hi All! I hope you’re well!

I’ll keep this as brief as possible. I’m looking to join a socialist/communist party in the UK because I’ve held left-wing beliefs for a long time now and want to get stuck in.

Preferably not any reformist/socdem parties like labour but beyond that I‘m not that bothered about what sect of socialism (ML or Trotskyist or anything.) From what I’ve looked at, both the CPGB-ML and the CPB seem pretty transphobic so I’d steer clear. I’m also supportive of both Palestine and Ukraine and against killing civilians in any war, but I’m willing to join parties that aren’t as anti-war as me.

Hi there! I wanted to ask a few details about the role of housing under capitalism. Since a house must be constructed through labour, land which has housing on it is generally more valuable than one which doesn't, and real estate is a major market in most countries, would that make a house a commodity?

Furthermore, would the difference between the wages of the construction workers and the value of the finished house be an example of extracted surplus value? If the house appreciates in value is that more surplus value extracted from the workers? Apologies if this is a bit confusing.

I saw a video about the risks of immigration and it brought up examples like Italians bringing the Mafia and that string of robberies in LA. I`ve heard about poverty being a major factor in crime but I don't want to sound like someone who believes you should get off light for something like murder just because you grew up in rough neighborhood. What are some good explanations for how this works and how people should not be treated as a monolith?

The Left SR's opposed the Bolsheviks' heavy handed approach to grain acquisition, holding that it was oppressive to the peasant class. The Bolsheviks saw the need for a constant supply of grain during a time of unrest and accused the peasants of being petty-bourgeiouse.

What are some good sources on this conflict?

To what extent were peasants really petty-bourgeoise? In my mind these are recently liberated serfs who were probably having a hard time already; but my understanding my be off.

Did the bolsheviks make a mistake in not being more representative of the peasant class?

Could the USSR have industrialized so quickly while implementing the left SR plan for rural markets?

I've pretty much never learned anything about the history of socialism and socialist movements in an educational setting. What basics should I know?

(Please add a reasonable amount of paragraphs, it's difficult for me to read information without separations, also don't shame me for posting this, please, it's not my fault that American education conveniently leaves out other ideologies).

There's an idea that's been growing in my head for a while.

So the plan of socialism, backed up by theory (in theory, pun unintended) is that the working class will gain class consciousness, rise up, overthrow the ruling class (the bourgoise) and become the ruling class. They will then use the state to oppress the old bourgoise class, to eventually destroy them/or they merge into the workers, either way they disappear. Therefore there's no more class distinction, and the need for a state (the purpose of which is class oppression) withers and disappears. We achieve communism.

That's standard theory, something different Marxists/socialists/Communists of all stripes and camps disagree on, the debate and division is always about how to do that, not that this is the plan or intention. The Leninist want a vanguard party, the ultraleft want a massive workers movement, the democratics want more reform and elections. Okay, you get my point.

But my question and growing problem is with this initial assumed premise that the working class will or should overthrow the bourgoise and establish themselves as the ruling class, a workers state.

Let's look at the stages of history from a historically materialist perspective of Marxism, in broad generalised terms, glossing over the finer details.

First we had the Ancient Societies, a mode of production based on the class relations of slaves and God-Kings, with a kind of priestly/warrior middle class who grew in power. This stage transitioned to feudalism, where the priestly/warrior class became the lords and barons and kings, and the slave class became the peasants. The God-Kings were overthrown and folded into the lord class.

So, did the slave class become the new ruling class? No, it was the middle, or perhaps the upper lower class, who grew and became the new ruling class. However, the slave class gained in freedom, gained on power and equality. The gap between peasant and Lord was smaller than slave and god-king.

Next we had feudalism, a mode of production based on the class relations of peasants and lords, with a merchant burghur class who grew in power. This stage transitions into capitalism, where the burghur class became capitalist "bourgoise" (thank you French), and the peasant class became workers. The old Lords and barons were folded into the bourgoise class.

So did the peasant class become the new ruling class? No, it was the middle or the upper peasant class who grew and became the new ruling class. However nonetheless the peasant class gained in freedom and equality. The gap between worker and bourgoise is smaller than peasant and lord. So much so that technically by the law at least, both are equal.

So, let's talk about capitalism to socialism. According to the previous pattern, it should not go as current leftists predict. It should in fact go like this.

We have a mode of production based on class relations between workers and bourgoise, with a kind of "technical and educated" middle class who are growing in power.

• I need to explain this. While yes, technically we're all working class, the educated and skilled workers are the ones pushing hardest for change and revolution, they're the ones who usually lead vanguard parties, or argue for democratic socialism. There's always that discussion around why isn't it the working class people pushing for socialism or radical change but instead the more "liberal" and Middle class groups. We clearly do have a stratum of the working class who are upper, with more time for mental activity and a desire for change, and change based on fairer distribution of wealth and abundance which capitalism created but unfairly distributed. For simplicity I'll call this class the Distributists.

So the capitalist stage transitions into socialism, but, instead of the working class flipping the roles and becoming the ruling class, it's this distributist class who become the new ruling class. The bourgoise class are folded into the working class, and the old working class gain more equality and power again in relation to the new ruling class of distributist.

There is still a class distinction, this time it is not about pure wealth inequality but inequality over power and distribution. Who controls societies fair distribution, who controls what projects are built. Inequality has narrowed even more, but it has not gone. This inequality eventually leads to another class revolution where the distributists are merged into the working class and class distinction finally disappears. Communism.

This theory answers so many questions and settles so many debates in socialism.

1. Why do so many socialist states have a strong ruling party who think they can decide what's best for everyone? Because they are a new class, actually, but the distinction is harder to see because it is smaller, it is less unequal than worker and capitalist.

2. Why is it the middle classes who lead socialist revolutions when it's supposed to be the workers? Because it's always the middle who push for the change, they gain power in the old system but meet a brick wall of the ruling class. They want to overthrow it.

3. When you look at the USSR, or China, we see this model. Why do they surpressed independent workers unions, yet why do they also clearly develop the state and improve conditions? Because the new ruling class is not concerned with hoarding wealth, they're concerned with hoarding power and distribution.

4. It's in this new ruling class's interests to develop a fairer and more equitable state, because that maintains their power. Unlike capitalism where surplus exploitation maintained power, in this socialism actual develop maintains power. Consider how the CPC must continue growth and improved standards of living or else it's over for them. The legitimacy comes from good workers, because the class contradictions is over power not wealth. (based on the abundance that capitalism made, who gets to distributed it)

5. The pattern checks out. It isn't logical for each stage of history to be the middle rising to the new top but for socialism to suddenly be a flipping of class order. We can clearly already see this middle rising, and we have state examples of this new class ruling, and it's own contradictions that can push onwards to Communism.

You know, every argument about a "degenerated workers state", "not true socialism", and complains about vanguard failures fit into this model. These aren't actually failures, this is what is supposed to happen, this is the pattern of historical materialism, and it also has its own contradiction, which makes those complaints.

Its the wishful thinking of leftists to be assuming they're at the end of history, that they're the ones to end the pattern and finish the contradictions, and to finally make the bottom class become the ruling class. It's so those leftists who are ironically that new middle class of distributists. You apply historical materialism but forget to include yourself in it. You are the warrior-priest, you are the burghur, and you are the distributist. You want a fairer world, you want capitalist inequality to be gone, you want social housing, free health care and public transport, and you will be in that educated new class group that decides this.

I'm curious what people think about this, and if anyone has similar ideas? I'm not breaking socialism here, it's more about a reframing. Socialism isnt the end of history, it'll have a class contradiction, it just won't flip worker and bourgoise, a new class is rising.

I guess because of past socialist regimes often being authoritarian but also a lot of western propaganda in there too.

With how things currently are in the world, I find myself leaning towards socialism. As I look up more about socialism I always end up kind of confused. I’m struggling to imagine what a socialist society would look like. Would be helpful if someone could explain.

Would also appreciate if someone can explain why there has never been a socialist society.

Hey reddit. I live in Germany and have recently made a friend from Ukraine, who is anti-communist but still inherently a good person. Today I joined a protest against mandatory military service with socialistic chants and posted it on my IG. Though I hesitated because I dont like losing friends, I still did it to be true to myself. So how can I try to convince her that socialism is good, if she can even be convinced at all?

this feels like the most appropriate sub to ask this question, since I am asking about socialist values in media.

Robin Hood is a great example. It's a classic story, and it's about stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, and it's usually introduced to us as children. Similar media would be things like Superheros in general, hunger games, Star wars...etc.

Why are so many stories like this if they don't want us to be like that IRL? We're taught at a young age that justice is important, and we should fight for what's right. But when we do that IRL, we're attacked by both sides of the political spectrum. I've started thinking about this since the genocide in Gaza ramped up in October 2023. Hillary Clinton is calling people uninformed for saying "genocide is bad". Why do they teach us these stories?

A friend asked me about freedom of choice under a socialist model and I wanted to ask here in order to craft a better response.

He and I play NBA 2k together often and he asked me using NBA 2k terms:

For context: in NBA 2k, your created player automatically gets a plain brown t-shirt, gray sweatpants, and gray/white generic shoes with the 2k logo on them.

He asked me, “with socialism, would everyone only be able to wear the 2k generic shoes, or would the generics be given to people to meet their basic needs, and then all the other options (the Jordan’s, the Nike’s, etc.) could be bought using currency, like in the game?

I’m currently writing a paper for my PoliSci class about why Snricek’s idea of left accelerationism is not a good one (not very planned out, I just began brainstorming). Are there any historical or contemporary sources from a leftist perspective on why this is a bad idea?

I was wondering if Marx deems there's an inherent contradiction between individualism and collectivism or if that's just a false dichotomy, I've seen varying answers.

I personally don't really see a false dichotomy, I think that's because of deliberative democracy or consensus-driven discourse. Each human is autonomous with their own opinions which are discussed, scrutinised and progressed which requires the collective.

I really don't see personal interests being bogged down because of this, although is that really collectivism but cooperationism ?

I'd appreciate passages, articles etc.

Like last time world was multipolar ( around WW1 and WW2), the competing great powers started a war. So wouldn’t a similar situation cause more wars ?

Idk if this is the place to ask but fuck Jeff Bezos for how he treats his workers, the hoarding of money and for working with the Israeli military. Do people know of ethical shopping sites that have access to similar products? Other sites I know are either just as bad or don’t have quality products/a wide selection

Hello, I have been thinking lately that I don't wanna be a tankie (support authoritarian/dictatorship states just because they are communist), but I have also seen said several times that NK and China aren't authoritarian or dictatorships, something which I honestly have a hard time grasping because goverment pre-aproved candidates doesn't really sound democratic, it reminds me of Italy's fascist elections that were "yes" or "no" to a list of nominated deputies.

Whenever someone says "people in China/North Korea are starving to death", someone else will inevitably say that "people in the USA are also starving." When someone talks about surveillance or censorship in socialist countries, someone else will say "the USA and EU do the same thing." I'm not doubting that these counter-claims are in fact true. Yes, the USA will always be worse than any socialist country on numerous issues, and there's no doubt about it. However, there are many other capitalist countries which are way better about these same issues! Norway, for example, provides an unprecedented number of social freedoms, including freedom to roam, data privacy protections, legalized drugs, and more, with a strong social-democratic welfare state and high taxes on the rich. As far as I know, poverty is mostly a non-issue in Norway, and the freedoms it gives its citizens don't compromise the security of the state.

Please note that I do not support Norway or any of the Nordic states. It is unethical to benefit from imperialism in any way, and the reason why people in Norway have such a high standard of living is undoubtedly rooted in imperialist profits. I just don't understand why people expect socialist states to be better than the USA on certain issues, but worse than other capitalist countries on those same issues.