So, I’ve been doing some thinking about how often I see the term radicalizing in relation to getting other people on board with socialism.

Is calling ourselves “radical” the right terminology here? I would consider socialism to not be a radical ideology at least in my head because I see it as the way things should be, and in turn I believe the current status quo is actually radical because it contains a lot of uncertainty and suffering. Does this line of thinking make any sense? If it doesn’t and we truly would and should be considering ourselves radical, does labeling ourselves radical really help or does it scare away potential allies when we mention it?

I'm new to understanding how violence is necessary for both the state to enforce its rules on people and its use from people trying to oppose it and how sabotage and other tactics can be used to strike the capitalist system, but is the damage on small businesses and personal property considered acceptable collateral damage, a thing it should be avoided, or part of the process?

I get the point, that mao placed greater emphasis on the peasantry opposed to the factory workers but there are many maoists in countries without feudal elements, like Germany for example. What does a German maoist think? Would they still support the peasantry (which would be unfit because there aren't any in Germany) or would they just have a greater emphasis on a individual approach to revolution rather than following the Soviet revolution?

One of the ways that the profit margins of corporations in the US are protected is the use of low-paid labor, which is usually in the form of migrants. So, if a mass deportation of illegal immigrants were to happen, that would destroy the pool of low-paid labor that businesses have access to. Here's where my question comes in: if that were to happen, do you think we would see renewed efforts to fight unions? It seems to me that, in order to protect their profits in the wake of now having to hire US citizens who require better wages, companies would lobby to fight unions and labor laws in Congress. If this is successful, US workers would garner less pay/benefits and the profit margins of the corps would be more cushy.

What do y'all think?

I recently learned about Chico Mendes and CNS' work in Brazil, and I am especially impressed by their emphasis on education. I would like to know if there is similar documentation of such efforts born out of workers' movement and preferably with a focus on nature and conservation.

First post here, hi all!

I've been trying to do a bit of research on recessions (especially the on the on-going vibecession that a lot of people are talking about... is there a gag-order on most online media about that, or is it all a hoax? Not even Wikipedia or RationalWiki have anything concrete on those, so it's hard to find even dissenting opinions outside of Reddit and news sites)

I digress. I came across an extract on Wikipedia that attributed an interesting theory on recessions to Karl Marx;

"Karl Marx claimed that recurrent business cycle crises were an inevitable result of the operations of the capitalistic system. [...] all that the government can do is to change the timing of economic crises. The crisis could also show up in a different form, for example as severe inflation or a steadily increasing government deficit. Worse, by delaying a crisis, government policy is seen as making it more dramatic and thus more painful."

Unfortunately, this assertion is uncited on the website, but is there anyone better-read on Marxian economic theory that might be able to ID the idea in any specific works and theories, and perhaps help me expand further upon it?

Thanks in advance!

I'm a socialist trying to understand Marxist ideas more clearly

I know socialism is more of a nation wide or even world wide system but I wonder if it can just happen without any government intervention. Like most of the population are workers right? Who wouldn't want dignity, empowerment, and things capitalism doesn't offer. It should be the goto type of job for most people, even if you have to pay to be a part owner of a company or if it's a requirement to buy your own equipment. I also understand profit or exploitation is off the table so it's hard to compete with other companies but I still think there should be some kind of model where people can come together and work something out. One good thing capitalism does offer is economic freedom as in giving people power to make their own decisions in their business, but worker friendly companies are scarce to say the least.

The first problem I can see right now is the fact we value employers the most and worker owned organizations only benefits workers. In our current culture, workers are the last priority, it's all about the employer and consumer. The way things are, workers have little to no sway over anything, they just take what they can get. The second problem is when there's too many people that owns the same company and everyone gets an equal say, people will feel unmotivated because the more people there are the less each person is able to control. Something like being a barber can work out because it's a 1 on 1 service and customers can pay you directly but something else like being a stock clerk in a big retail store, you may not as easily see the fruits of your labor. I don't think specialized jobs like stock clerks can exist without problems, big retail stores will have to be divided up into sections like an indoors farmers market where each person has full control over their territory, The third problem and the main part of my confusion is the status quo, the employer-employee relationship is not only the most common, it seems to be the only thing we have. Sure there's exceptions but they're too rare to consider. I don't know why?

Those three problems aside the fact still stands most people in the world are workers and they all want to find the best job for them. Even though we value employers the most, they don't offer any value to us, I just don't see the point of them. The core of my frustration is the status quo and it seems the employer-employee method is the only method. But like if people want a leader, they'll elect managers or supervisors, if they want someone to distribute pay, they'll hire people in charge of payroll, if they want someone to hire other people, they'll get a hiring manager. My point is there's no need for employers at all. It's the position we value the most but their only role is to own people and collect their shared added value, but at the same time even though on paper they're useless it's basically the only available method of organizing a company. In my brain a worker-owned economy can work in capitalism but surely it's been tested and failed and that's the reason for this current employer dominant culture we live in. Making owning other people's labor illegal through the government is the only thought in my mind but that feels like losing to me because again employers have no role they just shouldn't be a thing.

A few weeks ago, I was debating a peer in class and I was doing well, however at the end of class he asked the question "Where do we start with all of this?". I was basically talking about socialism without saying the word socialism. He left the Zoom meeting before I could answer, but that left me wondering. Where should we start? How are we going to implement socialist policies? How are we going to eventually achieve full communism (by that I mean all countries are socialist and then we can get communism)? Sorry for some bad grammar or phrases, I'm trying to write this quickly.

silly question I know, but I've heard people saying how marxism is religion bcuz of how much socialists/communists worship Marx and his works as like a sacred text, does that definite it as a religion?

I recently started creating a podcast series on 'Pedagogy of the Oppressed' by Paulo Freire. It was one of the most revelatory books I have ever read. His analysis of contemporary (published 1968) education being a tool of an oppressive system still rings true today. And his psychology on the minds of both oppressor and oppressed classes alike are truly enlightening. To my mind there isn't anything I can argue with him about, but I wonder if others out there have certain critiques of this work. Thoughts?

Also here is the podcast series. 12 - Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Session #2

Also won’t adopting a Soviet model solve this problem as the Soviet Union had near universal literacy?

So, the soviet Union, the evil dictatorship dudes as portrayed by the west during the cold war. But, how true is it? I do think it has some merit points, such as the soviet intervention in nations that were drifting to more traditional democratic regimes such as hungary or even czechoslovakia. I'm not gonna make any assumptions to your answers, by the way. Now, how democratic was the USSR?

So Cuba is experiencing power outages and food supply shortages. People are blaming the socialists for it, and even saying China told them to be "less socialist" I want to know what this sub thinks is happening.

It’s my understanding that when supply and demand are in equilibrium, exchange value is roughly the same as price, but what determines the relationship between socially necessary labor time and exchange value? This feels like a very basic concept, but is it just the amount of labor time needed to produce the object? i.e. if a table took 6 hours of socially necessary labor time would that mean that 3 vases that each had 2 hours would have the same exchange value? Any answers are welcome because it’s all a little confusing right now.

i find the ideology really fascinating, and i'm unsure of where to start when it comes to how it works or how it would be implemented. do you guys have any recommendations on books to start with?

Don't know what to put here but I hope this post goes well and is not removed.

Hey all, I’ve been mulling over making this post or not because it gives me extreme anxiety regarding being shit on by people for being in the military, so, I want preface this by saying: I became a socialist AFTER joining the military, several years into my contract and haven’t participated in any rotations of any kind.

So, my question is how do I cope with being a socialist in the world’s most imperialist military force? It’s making me extremely mentally unwell, especially seeing people like Aaron Bushnell because I empathize with him. The military, society and my personal life have driven me to depression, and learning about socialism gives me hope for the world.

I’m a reservist and I’ve been putting off participating in SJP and YDSA and other social justice organizations at my campus for university because I’m worried about not being accepted or repercussions from the military.

I’m trying to learn and educate myself, whilst avoiding the things that the military is guilty of, all while trying to maintain my sanity and values.

I know there are people like Michael Prysner, but does anyone know of anyone who has theory or opinions regarding my situation that I can read about? I hope that I can provide my own perspectives to people in future.

Lmk what yall think

I am a leftist who find myself agreeing with socialist economic and moral principles, but do not agree with rehabilitation of certain criminals, particularly sexual criminals and violent criminals. I think if someone commits a terrible crime but we could guarantee they will never do it again - well, we should still move towards not letting them out again regardless. Not everything should be based on statistics and consequentialism - some things should be portrayed as bad inherently in a society, not just because of outcomes.

Is this view incompatible with being a socialist? If this view does this fit socialism what ideology would fit my stance? Because liberalism is too lenient on crimes and right-wing ideologies aren't an option due to being capitalist/racist etc.

EDIT: Thanks for all the responses. It seems I cannot be a socialist, which is a bit disappointing as I had read some theory thinking it was for me, but none regarding rehabilitation. Anyway, I appreciate the honest and quick replies. I'll probably go back to being a political doomer 😂

Can you help me understand the issue and if there is a reason your Russian aggression?

I'm not trying to be a troll or anything with this post. I'm just kind of curious to know why some Marxists and people on the left are more bothered by millionaire music artists and actors than by millionaire athletes.

I'Il see far more leftists and Marxists complaining about DiCaprio, Bob Dylan, or Christopher Nolan being rich than about Nadal or Cristiano Ronaldo being rich.

I'm just wondering why there'd be any moral difference between one and the other. In both cases it's someone enriching themselves via their talent. And yes, obviously wealth inequality is always problematic. I just don't think a successful athlete and a successful music artist are any different from one another on a moral plane. I could be wrong though.

I believe in socialism and I hope that it becomes a thing in the West in my lifetime but I also acknowledge that we live in a capitalist society that we can't just choose to not live in. I've heard many times that socialism is not a poverty cult yet I was wondering if you were to get relatively wealthy and do well (even by exploiting someone else) would you be a bad socialist. The issue with agreeing with that is that A. to have some sort of influence and status in an economy like this is that you usually need wealth and B. it's essentially the rules of the game. If we want a socialist revolution to happen in the 21st century, we'd likely need help from the upper class. Also, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism as someone has to be exploited in some form to get the food you buy etc. So would it be bad to play the game and to apply the philosophy of "don't hate the player, hate the game"? I acknowledge that a socialist revolution won't happen tomorrow but to have the money to make it happen, surely that would help?

Hello. I am a centrist from Europe that is very concerned with geopolitics, personal finance, & economics. I am very open toward all ideologies (except for those that endorse Russian imperialism), and I wonder why socialism, in its current and historical form, is/has been a factual analysis of the world and international economics. As well as this, I am asking for examples in order to solidify the claims made in the comment section, so that I can verify that this is indeed what happened.

Obviously Karl Marx wasn't born yet, but I'm curious why after the malarkey that the past Kings, Aristocrats, and the Church were doing to the people, that something like communism/socialism didn't form?

Like why would they go back to capitalism when it was practically little to no different than what made them want to revolt in the first place? And why when they did go to capitalism did all the revolutionary fervor die out and hadn't been seen to such a scale since?

Recently, North Korea has sent around ten thousand troops to Ukraine, and it got me wondering why would they support an Imperialist, Capitalist hellhole like Russia? Wouldn't Russian imperialism be just as bad as American imperialism? Just because we share the same enemy shouldn't make us friends.

Hi comrades, learning socialist here, what is the deal with Venezuela? I’m quite misinformed on the matter, my current thought process on the matter is that the government itself isn’t socialist but rather a sorta pseudo-socialist state like a China x10, yet they elected a socialist leader. Any information related to that would be super helpful!! Also, what’s do us Marxist say when we’re asked what’s our thoughts on the mass immigration of Venezuela? Like stated before, very uninformed on this and any information about this helps!!!

I am slowly building up a book club / education committee in my local org and am wanting to cover fundamental texts, but I also would like to have ties to issues particular to America. Racism against non-whites, colonialism, etc.

We are covering Fanon soon, but I would like to also make sure everyone is getting an education in what Marxism and other Leftist ideas really mean, so we can go on to disseminate that to the public in our next phase.

We have covered Socialism: Utopian & Scientific, and Ocalan's Democratic Confederalism this year; Blood In My Eye is among the next texts being considered.

EDIT: Please bear in mind that I'm wanting selections that don't assume that much prior knowledge.

Hello everyone, I am seeking some feedback on a research study proposal.

Most of my peers write from a constructivist epistemology and I want to present my study in historical materialist terms, to which I am very new. My background research is about the exploitative economic relations in the mental health industry, and argues that the burnout/compassion fatigue found among psychotherapists, is in large part related to both working conditions (e.g., overwork) and alienation.

I am looking for any qualitative social science studies that discuss how their interpretation of the data flows from historical/dialectical materialism, or any resources that can guide me on explaining such an onto/epistemological stance in the context of a qualitative study employing an interview method.

Thanks in advance for your help!