Bueno les tengo una pregunta, cómo defenderian ustedes temas como la economía colonial en el siglo XVII o el Orden colonial, en mi opinión defender estos temas son complicados noso solo por muchos datos, libros, etc. Que contradicen o hablan cosas malas de esos temas.

If the working class had weapons, I believe this might actually work. I don’t consider myself a socialist, but I’m not rapidly against it.

I believe everyone should have freedom, without censorship of any government, whatever form that government/state may be.

Chicos, quiero un debate sobre qué pasaría o qué ocurriría si la Gran Colombia se reinstaurara.

En lo personal, este tema ha sido objeto de discusión, pero es algo muy complejo, puesto que cada país tiene sus problemas internos. Esto implicaría una reforma en salud, en leyes y muchas cosas más, como el choque de culturas. Es un golpe que ningún país, como Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador y Panamá, puede ignorar, ya que tienen diferencias gigantescas. Otro problema serían los presidentes de cada país. Hay que tener en cuenta que los presidentes actuales son: Nicolás Maduro en Venezuela (socialismo/chavismo), Gustavo Petro en Colombia (izquierda), Daniel Noboa en Ecuador (centro-derecha) y José Gabriel Carrizo en Panamá (centro). Estas grandes diferencias políticas llevarían a varios desacuerdos. La economía se vería gravemente afectada si no se abordara de inmediato.En el ámbito internacional, Estados Unidos también jugaría un papel importante. Al ser un país muy influyente, no estaría de acuerdo en que este nuevo país volviera a flote, ya que buscaría mantener el control en la región y un equilibrio en el poder. Si no fuera así, varios países podrían intentar restablecer sus imperios para competir con la Gran Colombia. Los puntos buenos serían que sería el 5to pais mas grande de la región siendo superado por tamaño de territorio nada más por ,4to lugar Argentina, 3ro Brasil, 2do Brasil, y primero Estados Unidos Pero superando a todos por su diversidad teniendo gran fortaleza con ciertas partes de la economía como lo es el carbón, el petróleo, la producción de esmeraldas y piedras preciosas, El mayor lugar donde más hay más naturaliza, más control sobre la Amazonas, y otros puntos políticos en los que se pueden debatir. Gran potencia militar llegando ah estar en el séptimo o octavo de los ejercicios más fuertes del mundo. Teniendo el control marítimo de varios lugares con entrada al mar dando una mayor estrategia tanto económica y como militarmente.

¿Ustedes que piensan, o que agregarían, incluso con que no están de acuerdo y con que están desacuerdo?

Not long ago I got banned from r/socialism for 14 days for ‘’ white fragility ‘’ and ‘’ liberalism ''for writing a comment; ‘’ stop obsess about skin color ‘’ about a youtube video of a person self-flagellating for having white skin..

After the 14 days ban, I tried to address the issue with r/socialism, r/Socialism_101, r/communism, and r/latestagecapitalism, and got banned permanently for all of them.

Is this really viable? How do they expect to be accessible to the broad working class with this kind of rigidity and censorship? Why are so many ideas and words taboo?

Is the point of those subreddits to discuss, debate and build socialism, or is it to preserve some sort of ideological purity of a few enlightened woke people?

What are those infantile rules, what is the AutoModerator, who decides them, what is this lack of freedom of speech?

Am I the only who finds this ridiculous? Maybe reddit is not the ideal place for socialists wanting to reach out, discuss and organize?

Should a college degree be a constitutional requirement for elected government officials?

Hello everyone i m quite socdem i do appreciate the concept of socialism but having a true socialist state(or implementing socialist like schemes )in a world where capitalism is preferred and ingrained seems to be pretty hard?Sometimes feel it kind of impractical .How do resolve this?

Marx never produced a guidebook or a formula for creating a collective, democratic society to follow capitalism. But he did create the most detailed, most rigorous critique of capitalism in its historical context. And anyone who would advocate socialism should seek awareness and understanding of Marx's writings not to be able to advocate what his work implies, but because his work has been the inspiration and guide where possible for every major communist revolution to date.

One factoid that we need to understand is that Marx almost never referred to "socialism". Instead, he referred to communism. Specifically, he referred to "lower stage communism" which has come to be called "socialism" by most of the world today, and to "higher stage communism" which we call "communist society".

The reason for his habit of referring to "communism" is that he envisioned the proletarian revolution having the purpose of ending class societies with all their exploitation and class sufferings. And classless society would be communist society by definition.

He didn't imagine class societies coming to a screeching halt immediately following any revolution. Rather, as in his "Critique of the Gotha Program", he saw the new proletarian society growing gradually out of the old capitalist society, but dependably so because it would be led by the working class and the destruction of capitalist rights to private ownership and private profits. The new society would initially be "just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges."

And this he called "lower stage communism" because it is beginning to move in the direction of the goal - classless, stateless communist society. At that point it would be "the dictatorship of the proletariat" because the leading contingent of the working class (proletariat) would be in control and would be suppressing the class urges and efforts of the capitalist class as they try to restore their dominance and stop the working class.

Gradually, over several generations, the impulses and class consciousness and class goals, preferences and intentions of the capitalist class would diminish and "wither away" as Marx put it, leading to classes "withering away" as classless society emerges. Classes and goals of personal superiority and personal dominance would vanish as people become habituated to cooperating, democratic procedures, and accustomed to managing any occasional conflicts and crimes themselves with their own people's organizations elected and appointed democratically.

So with the goal constantly being classless, stateless communist society in the distant future, Marx referred to the whole process as stages of communism so as to avoid any identification of any part of the process as being a single economic and political era in itself. The goal is the point.

Is China an example of state capitalism or socialism?

Hi, I've recently been banned from a number of Socialist/Communist subs for having the hot take of "Genocide Bad"

I'm deeply concerned at the lack of pushback in socialist spaces to Genocidal ideals and I wanted to know if that was a key tenant of Socialism/Communism.

I am of the opinion that the tacit endorsement of genocide is bad for the movement, and the banning of those that fight against such positions even worse.

Efficiency and Innovation: Socialism advocates for collective ownership and state control of resources, aiming to prioritize social welfare over profit incentives. While this ideological stance aims for equitable distribution, it fundamentally undermines economic efficiency and innovation found in capitalist systems:

Bureaucracy and Central Planning: Socialist economies rely on centralized planning to distribute resources and regulate economic activities, aiming for equitable outcomes but often leading to bureaucratic inefficiencies:

Elaboration on Freedom and Personal Choice in Socialism: A Skeptical Perspective

Socialism, by advocating for collective ownership and state control of resources, inherently diminishes personal freedoms and economic autonomy.

• State Control and Economic Autonomy: Socialist economies prioritize collective welfare and often centralize control over major industries and resources. This emphasis on state ownership limits individual autonomy in economic decision-making. In capitalist societies, individuals have the freedom to engage in entrepreneurial activities, invest in personal ventures, and choose their career paths based on personal preferences and market opportunities .In contrast, socialist policies impose bureaucratic regulations and restrictions that hinder economic flexibility and innovation. State-controlled industries typically operate under centralized planning, where decisions are made based on collective goals rather than individual preferences or market demand. This can lead to inefficiencies and reduced consumer choice, as state directives prioritize social objectives over individual economic freedoms.
• Private Property Rights and Market Competition: Capitalist economies uphold private property rights as fundamental to economic freedom. Individuals and businesses have the right to own, use, and transfer property according to their own interests and preferences. This framework encourages investment, entrepreneurship, and innovation by providing legal protection and incentives for individuals to take risks and reap rewards .In contrast, socialist systems often advocate for collective ownership or state control of resources, limiting private property rights. State ownership diminishes the diversity of economic choices available to individuals, as resources are allocated based on central planning rather than market demand. This can lead to uniformity in economic activities and reduced incentives for individuals to innovate or adapt to changing consumer preferences.
• Bureaucratic Regulations and Personal Liberties: Socialist policies tend to impose extensive bureaucratic regulations to enforce economic planning and redistribution of resources. While aimed at achieving equitable distribution, these regulations can restrict personal liberties and economic autonomy. Individuals may face barriers to starting businesses, accessing resources, or pursuing economic activities outside state-sanctioned sectors. In capitalist societies, regulatory frameworks aim to balance economic freedoms with public welfare, promoting competition and consumer choice while safeguarding against monopolistic practices and unfair market practices. This balance allows individuals to make informed economic decisions based on personal preferences and market opportunities, fostering a dynamic economy that responds to diverse consumer needs.
• Innovation and Creativity: Economic freedom in capitalist systems fosters innovation and creativity by empowering individuals to pursue new ideas, products, and services. Entrepreneurs play a crucial role in driving technological advancements and economic growth through their ability to identify market opportunities and take calculated risks. This dynamic environment encourages competition and rewards innovation, leading to continuous improvements in productivity and quality of life. In contrast, socialist economies may struggle to foster innovation under centralized planning and state control. The absence of competitive pressures and profit incentives can deter individuals from pursuing entrepreneurial ventures or investing in research and development. This can result in stagnant industries, technological backwardness, and a lack of consumer-driven innovation compared to market-based economies.
• Historical Examples and Practical Experience: Historical examples of socialist regimes, such as the Soviet Union and Maoist China, illustrate the impact of centralized control on personal freedoms and economic autonomy. State-enforced collectivization and industrialization efforts limited individual choices and led to widespread economic hardships. Attempts to enforce ideological conformity and suppress dissent further restricted personal liberties, undermining social cohesion and cultural diversity. Contemporary examples of socialist policies continue to face challenges in balancing collective welfare with individual liberties. While some countries adopt mixed economic models that combine socialist principles with market mechanisms, the legacy of state intervention in economic affairs often limits personal freedoms and innovation potential.

What if as you socialise the economy at begins to fail?

My friend and I have been going back and forth for months about this, the question is who would win in a battle with 1 year prep time, Every fly in the world or every human in the world.

The capitalist class has had 70 years or more to denigrate and confuse socialism with all manner of lies and distortion. Is the "knee-jerk" rejection of socialism so ingrained in society that it would be beneficial for it to have a new name, like "the People's System" or "Anti-Exploitation" or whatever you can think of? (Suggestions welcome)

Se prefiere q san temas q sean de pareja o casi algo

╔═══════ °• ♔ •° ═══════╗ ☆ SECULARIST ☆ ╚═══════ °• ♔ •° ═══════╝

Whether you are enthusiastic about interesting and educational discussions and debates on: 🌐✨

📘 Politics-History 📗 Philosophy-Literature 📙 Economics 📕 Religion-Faith 🎨 Creativity 🔬 Sciences 🎭 Morality

🏛️ And beyond – you've discovered the perfect haven.

https://discord.gg/BE7UuddwQH

In my DSA chapter, I don’t think this idea would get far, but a certain sub (don’t mention it or link to it, you might get banned) has recently voted (with 59 percent of the vote, 0.2% of the sub voting) to “ban” marxism Leninism. The “red line” has been described by the mods in lots of different and confusing ways—variously describing the specific problem as ML being anti-democratic, revolutionary, or advocating for a vanguard party (their qualms, not mine).

I know some people equate ML with Stalinism, but why are they lumping Stalin and Lenin together as bad, but saying Marx is ok? Marx wasn’t any less squeemish about revolution and violence, he was just never leading a socialist party through a civil war.

I’m more interested in the theoretical basis of DemSoc vs ML than the political fighting. It just seems impossible to me that you could separate the schools of thought even if you believe socialism can be achieved through the ballot. What say you?

Should there be tint laws. I f21 have tints on my car for safety purposes as a female I have gotten harassed in my car while driving or parked some where. I personally feel uncomfortable for having to remove my tints because they are illegal in my state. But police officers are allowed to have them?! I have had people get out of there car and try to target me. It’s just weird to me how cops can have them but us people are not allowed to have them for our own safety.

When people refer to "communism" they usually confuse ideas, strategies, and policies that people call "communism" on one hand, and societies that are classless and stateless on the other.
IOW they confuse "communist" ideology and policy of people who are called "communists", with a future SOCIETY that would be a communist SOCIETY. It's the distinction of "something you can learn by studying a book" ("communist" strategies and policy) versus "a way of living in society" ("communist" classless and stateless society). Again, it's the difference between a person who is a "communist" because of a preferred ideology and method of work, versus a nation that is "communist" because it is classless and stateless. And clearly they are two very different things. And people commonly fail to distinguish them. I have not only seen posts in which the writer obviously bounces back and forth between them without realizing it, but I've also seen posts in which the writer bounces between then IN THE SAME SENTENCE.

We should all be aware of this an strive for clarity. That is why I only use the word "communist" in the form of either "communist ideology" or "communist society".

Obviously there has never been a communist society. In fact it would probably take half a dozen generations for a settled, consolidated, functioning socialist society to become a communist society. So it's a very long way off, and really not worth debating given the many changes that would be necessary before communist society could appear.

So let's discuss socialism. That proves to be a sufficient challenge.

​

Not really a debate, just want to hear some honest ideas. Recovering libertarian here. Trying to apply my lens of profit/cost, supply/demand, and my implicit appreciation for individual entrepreneurial spirit to larger issues. The critiques of large planned economies by Friedman, Hayek, and Sowell are all well and good but those people fail to apply their own critique to massive international corporations who can be just as blind to issues as large bureacracies.

That said I'm very sympathetic to several striking unions in my home country, I just would like to know what the solution to the issue is in a socialist framework. If we raise the cost of labour here how do we incentivize employers to keep jobs local rather than ship them off to 3rd world countries with no labour rights?

What is modern day feminism? What is feminism?

Feminism is the idea that men and women should be equal. Feminism was created with the aim that women were to be seen as individuals alongside men, not beneath them. The movement aimed to receive the vote, the right to work, and the right to be a human not an object.

Modern day feminism is not that.

Modern day feminism is everything that women in the 1920s would be ashamed of. Modern day feminism is selective. It is a white woman’s game and it is disgraceful. If anything society’s current idea of feminism takes us back hundreds of years.

Let me explain why?

Let’s look at this current society, a society that “empower” women by dehumanising them and sexualising them with the promotion of Only Fans. Yes it is a viable source of income but there should be shame in encouraging women, young women to give their lives to this platform, where perverted minds feed off. It is not okay, and it is not empowering. Adverts in the 1960s were aimed to sexualise women for the male gaze, to promote products for men. How is this any different?

Why is a white woman’s game?

Feminism is selective because it is used as an excuse to look past the poor decisions of white women, a prime example is Taylor Swift who uses feminism as an excuse for her behaviour. Feminism is not spoken in the language of coloured women and will never be. To be a coloured woman in today’s society you are ignored because of your race, you are under appreciated and you are forced to work twice as hard as white women. Our voices are not heard and our stories are not told because they do not follow the aesthetic of what’s expected of female empowerment. Look on any talk show, the stories of white women are being victimised and if any the stories of coloured women are been humoured at.

This is not feminism, this is a modern day watered down lie and it is a joke.

Hello, I want to elevate my debate skills in Socialism vs. other-ism. One thing I want to be able to do is use the correct language between a government that wants to own the means of production vs. a government that wants to control the means of production. What word or term can I use to distinguish between the two?

I am not very good at providing answers for topics like this because Im not very well informed on how they intertwine with history (which I why I call myself anti-capitalist but nothing more specific), so I thought I’d point him here to people I assume know more about the intricacies of this stuff than me. (Also it’d be good for my knowledge about socialism)

—————

1. Please define Socialism.

2. Please provide historic evidence of a country adopting a socialist system that improved the lives of its people.

3. Why would anyone want to grant so much power to a central government when history is replete with samples of disastrous consequences (Nazi Germany (not making the argument that the Nazis were socialist: rather, it’s an observation about power concentration), communist china, Venezuela, Cuba)

4. “You can vote your way IN to Socialism, but you usually have to shoot your way OUT”

Debate about whether or not people actually have the freedom of speech or if it just a way the government try to convince us to believe we are actually of importance?

Let's start batman vs spiderman personally batman will win Goku vs one punch man for me goku Darth vader vs yoda I think vader takes this Mario vs sonic Mario's taking this Any other debates put it in the comment

¿ Que pensáis que la gente clasifiqué el color de piel con la nacionalidad?

Como por ejemplo el personaje de la película wish Asha.

Socialism promotes the fact that wealth is generated from society together with unity and hard work of people so wealth should be distributed equally in society. But capitalism promotes the fact that the trade, manufacturing and industries are of private owners for generating capital. In my opinion socialism is better as it reduces the economic difference between people and all people can aim for full employment and full production if everyone is given equal wealth.