So the biggest problem with why a Marxist style communist state could never exist is because the men who govern are susceptible to corruption. With the emergence of AI in the future do you think a machine could govern man with the goal of true egalitarian equality?

I'm not sure this is the correct sub, I can ask elsewhere if this is inappropriate.

I'm looking for objective metrics that can be used to compare standard of life between countries. According to the labor theory of value, a commodity's value is the amount of labor time it usually takes to produce it. So, is there a metric for how many goods a single hour or day of working get buy in each country? Purchasing Power Parity and cost of living indices do not, to my understanding, consider wages. The closest thing I found is the local purchasing power index. Is that what I'm looking for?

This question is interesting to me in itself, but also in context of US workers. I read about the class' sorry state, but international US metrics - like real wages (PPP adjusted) - are very good compared to other countries. One can see cost of living greatly rising during the last 50 years, but it only means things have gotten worse, not that they are objectively bad. The Gini index is also inappropriate because it only measure relative inequality and not actual poverty. Regarding the latter, the US also looks good in absolute poverty measures because being poor in the US is much better than being poor in India, for example. So, am I missing the correct metrics? Or is US workers' sorry state is such merely relative to other Americans, and not absolutely, internationally?

That the primary argument of working class people against socialism is they would lose all of their material goods, but from my understanding the materials would likely be of better quality, due to the workers getting to reinvest the money into the product without the need for a oppressive money hogging owner, and of course their jobs would pay way better so, if they really want all of their random bullshit, it would still be theirs, just without the exploitation. Is this a good argument? I know it doesn't really line up with he more anarchist side of things, but I am not into that atm. Thx all and remember i am a rookie

Marx makes a big deal in Capital Vol. 1 of the difference between use value and exchange value, and how the creation of value comes from the labor process creating surplus value. But which kind of value does labor produce, and why?

The Cuban and North Korean economies are mostly based on state-owned companies and cooperatives, similar to the former USSR economy. It seems that there are no private enterprises and capitalist exploitation in these countries, if there are, they must only constitute a small part of the economy.

I have decent knowledge of a few basic systems people talk about, but I wanted to get some personal responses. I'm asking from what I would call a very roughly libertarian socialist perspective, but I'd like to hear what everyone thinks.

Do we does the public vote to, for example, open a new urban farming co-op or clothing store in our city, or is that choice made by a select few? How accountable are those people? When the choice is made, how do we actually start that new co-op? And how do you think this would work at a larger scale, like building a public moon resort or something?

Hey everyone,

Lately, I've been pondering the fate of small post-Soviet countries, because many of my relatives come from such regions. The collapse of the USSR dealt a devastating blow to their economies, particularly in places like Moldova and Georgia, where they found themselves largely subjected to neoliberal policies.

Currently, these nations are striving to join the EU, and as a socialist, I'm grappling with where I stand on this issue. Essentially, these countries find themselves caught between Russian and Western interests, making it appear at first glance that neither choice offers a favorable outcome for the local working class. However, on a, let’s say, smaller scale, joining the EU for some might seem like the better option, at least in the short term. The benefits might be easier immigration, cheaper goods, and perhaps even some minor political liberties. Nonetheless, it would still entail embracing capitalism, and the working class would continue to face oppression. Not to mention, that those countries would easily fall prey for western finance capitalists.

Having said that, I feel really disheartened for my relatives, because I want them to live in at least relatively prosperous country, not some backward imperialist’s colony.

What are you thoughts on this? Imagine if you were living in such country, would you vote for joining EU or not?

Edit: typos

Though I understand what the ultimate goal of socialism is, I also know that completely up-ending capitalism in one swoop would lead to a massive crash of the economy (which I know is part of the problem with capitalism), among other things. What are the proposed long-term solutions for America to leave behind its traditional capitalist structure while still keeping the average worker safe from economic hell, the entire country from entering economic limbo, and companies from reacting in a way to keep profits up and expenditures down (i.e. mass layoffs, de-specialization of jobs (the re-organization of job responsibilities onto a small number of workers to reduce labor), and automation)?

​

Also un-related to the question, but if anyone could answer that would be great. We know that past attempts at communism and socialism were fraught with issues. Both due to economic sanctions imposed by the US and its allies to discourage communist and socialist revolutions from taking place in other countries, and outside factors like war and natural disasters, as well as problems that were due to its implementation by revolutionaries. Please correct me if I'm wrong, because this is not based on too much evidence at all (hence the question), but countries like the soviet union ended up in economic limbo following World War 2, and workers were paid low stipends due to this, which (I think) gridlocked the countries economy. Again, correct anything I just said If I'm wrong, but what could be done to prevent economic gridlock from happening in the united states, and are the economic collapses that we see in the US (the housing market in 2008, the stock market is 19-- and 20-- (use any stock market collapse here there's plenty), and the collapse from covid) able to happen in a socialized organization of the economy?

I've heard that capitalism upholds the patriarchy, as well as many other primary enemies of modern feminism, how so? It would be great if someone could give specific details, thanks.

People legitimately post to this sub asking the most basic questions

So we should make a better pinned post that has several in depth answers to the most basic questions . Longer than 2 sentences. (The pinned post that nobody reads doesn't answer the questions in depth, leading to someone still making a post. A wall of text would be better)

We should do this unless we like/learn more from answering the basic questions to which I say have fun

Simultaneiosly with that we should make a required (basic) reading list for asking certain questions. Like principles of communism or the manifesto or something. It doesnt have to be long. And honestly forcing people reading that answers x question instead of asking those same questions here (principles of communism vs reddit post "basics of socialism?"), would be more beneficial for the person.

I think this would all make this sub better and a place for "learning, not questioning the basics of socialism" as the automod says

While I personally disagree with socialism/communism I think it's important to understand the other sides opinion so, why?

Im talking about texts like Kapital, The Communist Manifesto, theory written by Lenin etc

Were these part of the curriculum in education institutions in the Eastern Bloc at same level? Or were students given just a rudimentary understanding of socialism ?

Also, how well read were Eastern Bloc leaders in the Eastern Bloc when it came to Marxist theory?

Hello! I am a 17 year old marxist from Europe. I have considered myself a communist for quite some time now and I know one of the most important things one can do is to organise oneself.

There is a youth communist org in my city and I would like to join them. The problem is that my family is very liberal and would be very against that. I suspect that if I told them they might try to stop me because they would think it was the best for me. We have otherwise a great relationship.

I have realised when arguing with them that it is not worth it to argue. When I told them I was against a society based on profit they told me I had extreme thoughts.

They are good people, its just that they belive in the capitalist propaganda.

How would you handle this? Would you join and try to keep it hidden? Or would you inform them about why you chose to join?

Sorry if some terms are unprecise or wrong. I read in German and therefore don't know the proper English words.

So I am reading wage labor and capital and there Marx says, that the nominal and real wage can rise whilst the relative wage can fall. He explains this by giving the example of food costs falling by 2/3 whilst wages only fall by 1/3 so therefore the real wage increased whil the relative wage decreased. On face value I understand this example, however wouldn't this also mean that the profit decreases with the price of the commodites falling? Because the capitalist makes less money.

Hello, I've been interested in the Lao People's Revolutionary Party and the political development of Laos due to the obscurity of the subject but I have found sources of information about it to be scarce. I was curious if anyone here could recommend me any good and detailed bibliography about LPRP and their rule of Laos.

Hello!

How are wages determined in Cuba? How are the workplace conditions? Are there a lot of worker-co ops? How are elections held? Did anything drastic change after Fidel's death?

I think this comment captures it best but I still want to know more :)

"Most of the economy is publicly controlled, only tourism is really privitized and thats more out of necessity.

Past that, all healthcare and education is free, food is heavily subsidized to where a loaf of bread costs the equivalent of pennies, the largest party is the communist party (note that parties in cuba are not in governmenr in any way, they are basically just activist groups), housing is guarenteed, and more."

When I think of comunism I see it as the people and majority are in power of business collectively but also the government , am I just misentepreting comunism? am I correct in beliving it would require democracy?

I've recently been revisiting Morishima and as a layman am confused with interpreting the maths. In his book Marx's Economics he discusses the transformation problem. His model proves the following:

... we now have the following three cases in which [the transformation problem is resolved]. Case (i): There is balanced growth in an economy with no capitalists' consumption. Case (ii): There is no exploitation. Case (iii): All industries are homogeneous in their value structure.

And later,

... case (i), is a new member of the team of solutions to the transformation problem. [...] the state established in case (i) is no more than the von Neumann growth equilibrium discussed by many contemporary growth theorists.

I'm not really familiar with von Neumann's economic work, either.

Cases (ii) and (iii) are immediately intuitive, but (i) looks weird. Total productive reinvestment does not really alter the fact that there is disparity between the compositions of capital between different sectors - which sources the difference between value and price rates of profit.

Help appreciated.

What happens to individual producers (for example, a self employed guy running a hot dog stand) under Socialism? I am guessing that they are allowed to keep what they make money wise but like all citizens put some of their money in a common fund (rather than giving it to the capitalist in charge, then paying taxes and etc) and they keep the rest. But if that is the case, how do we prevent individuals gaining massive amounts of wealth or groups of people from gaining massive amounts of wealth over time and becoming bourgeoisie? I don't know if I am misunderstanding or just not well informed. Can you guys help inform me/explain to me this stuff, as well as generally how economics would work with money under a supposed new socialist nation as it progresses.

Thanksies :D

I was talking to a libertarian (never a fucking good idea because they’re one of the more unbearable political groups) and they said Marx was a freeloader who never had an actual job. How true is this?

He is taking India further right than ever before, and this year’s elections will solidify his support even more. He travels abroad and gets treated like the Messiah by foreign powers.

Opposition to him in India seems to be scattered and weak, or is it?

He’s come doen hard on the farmer protests. Unclear on how strong the Naxalite insurgency is currently.l

Whats the way out for India here?

Hello,

I have to teach IB History this year, something I haven't done in some time. I am finding the pro-US and Western bias in the course/material to be quite intolerable.

For example, one of the exam modules I have to teach is about authoritarianism, and the options are Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Castro. Think what you will about the three latter names, but the bias is clear. The US and Europe are rarely treated sceptically by the curriculum. While the course in other areas is not so overtly pro-American, the available content is.

My question is this: does anyone have/know of any material that could provide a foil to this type of content that would be accessible to an intelligent, but not motivated 17-year-old reader? I would spend more time reframing sources, but I have way too much work to do. I was not supposed to teach this course. In particular I have to also cover the events of the Cold War and Soviet and Chinese sources would be helpful.

Any help would be much appreciated by this English literature teacher (it is much easier to teach them left content in lit class!).

I asked a related question 10 days ago. Many answers, and are very appreciated, but they were too complex (I'm no economist and English isn't my native language). I'm reformulating my doubt, hoping for more didactic, "for-children" answers.

Let's assume I'm the planner in charge of a very simplistic socialist economic model: I tell factory "B" what to produce, in what quantity, using what materials, where to get those materials (from factory "A" in this case), who to sell its produce to (factory "C" in this case), and what to do with the profits it acquires.

While it can be argued that B is using money to buy/sell materials between the factories (and A and C are doing the same), it is easily grasped that money can be abolished in this system, because it completely lacks freedom of use, since, as described, all allocation, distribution and usage is decided by me, the planner. B literally can't choose what to buy, from who to buy, how much to produce, who to sell that product to, what to do with the profits, etc. and neither can A or C. So money isn't freely used, but instead is fully restricted by the planning authority (me).

This is what happened in the USSR. The state owned all means of production, it was essentially a very big, single factory. Yet it used money-language (buying, selling, taking loans and credits, etc.) and my question is why. Why was it so important for transfers from one factory to another to be referred to as "sales"? To be expressed in value form (money)? Was it just because it was practical? Or did it accomplish an actual function?

edit: I'm talking more about Europe than the U.S