Capitalism is a system that produces material in a certain, convoluted way, at a certain pace, with little difference in methods between privates enterprises.

We are expected to get up at certain times, commute, and work on the same thing for hours at a time. You are also required to express professionalism in the workplace and have tremendous social skills

Being neurodivergent (autism, ADHD, OCD, learning disability, etc) you are in a society that is not built for you. You may have poor social skills, have a hard time paying attention, have poor processing speed, you may have motor coordination issues, you may have sensory overload, have poor working memory, or you can’t sit still.

The unemployment rate for neurodivergent people is alarming, and it’s not our fault, capitalism requires everyone to be the same. And my AuDHD is a major factor that has brought me here.

My question is, how could a socialist economy benefit neurodivergent people? Capitalism obviously can’t for reasons listed above but would a socialist method of production see multiple methods of working? Maybe neurodivergent people can pursue things they are passionate about and earn their purpose there?

I’m a neurodivergent socialist so I was wondering what things would be like for them under socialism

Hello,

I guess I’m specifically looking for why the API protest didn’t work.

So,

No moderator solely lives off of views made from Reddit. So, when going on strike, they are not really being effected in any of physiological needs (save maybe socialization?). So why have these not worked?

I understand they were not really organized at all, with some subreddits going dark permanently while others only could agree on a few days.

But, unless it has always been way fewer subreddits than I imagine or for far shorter time, shouldn’t the revenue loss negate whatever money Reddit was hoping to make with its API changes?

The only real reason I could think the boycott wasn’t successful was because Reddit didn’t want to set a precedent for user engagement with the platform.

Thoughts?

• u/whatever the hell user name I made for this god foresaken platform

It apparently has something to do with the youth of China "giving up" due to hopelessness. Or so I've been informed. I'm hoping for an explanation of "let it rot" from a socialist perspective. The only videos i could find explaining it had a clear bias, claiming the reasoning for this movement (if you can call or that) is that the Chinese "lack ambition, like in the United States" Suffice it to say, they proceeded to describe Capitalism while trying to insult China/socialism.

Does anyone know of this? Can someone explain it to me and why is a thing? Or is it?

Would artists be allowed to create art and not work or would they still have to work? By artists I mean musicians of any type, painters, writers, poets, playwrights, actors, TV shows and movies in general, mangakas etc. Would they receive bonuses for their work? How would you even measure the value of art to a society? I don’t know much about socialism so I’m curious.

Why lots of people use the fact that socialist countries weren't as advanced/successful as capitalist countries without considering "how" these nations were before and without considering the fact that countries like Cuba couldn't literally prosper due to the fact it still is embargoed by half of the world?

I mean, as an Italian, I often hear the sentence "Mussolini was a great leader", something that I clearly can't comprehend, and usually my response if someone argues with me about this is that, even if he could have done actually good things, is that no matter what he killed and imprisoned lots of people and he was allied with the nazi Germany. At the same time if someone asks me my opinion about Tito and Stalin I wouldn't ever say that they were bad leaders, even if they killed and imprisoned lots of people. Is having this double standard right?

If the capitalist-left is (fake socialist parties) and not socialists at all, and if the orthodox pure marxist parties are the true socialist parties. Why then people support the fake socialist parties instead of supporting the real socialist parties?

I just don't understand why people support the wrong left instead of the supporting the correct right left

Something has to give!!

.

The reason the Sino Soviet split happened was because Mao thought the west needed to be destroyed, Khrushchev thought peaceful coexistence with the west was possible... But the end result was- China became friends with the west to oppose USSR... the very country that wanted to wanted to be friends with the west.

I would like to legitimately know what the hell happened here? There are a lot of weird things that happened during the Cold War but by God, this has to be one of the weirdest things I have ever seen. Why the US choose the PRC over USSR?

Further questions: Did Marx misunderstand Proudhon or was he bang on? Do these criticisms explain why no one talks about Proudhon's critique of capitalism any more? Did Marx have the chance to critique Proudhon's later work? What did he think of that?

I have a corporate job at a company with more than 20000 employees. I have worked at bigger ones and small outfits of maybe a dozen people.

For a long time I have felt that, to the extent that I am good at my job, the net economic effect of my efforts just increases income inequality. If I do something that increases the stock price 0.01%, the largest shareholders gain more than smaller ones or employees that have no shares. A lot more, like Ponzi scheme levels.

When I try to look into this, I find articles like this one that claim most corporate contribution to inequality is between companies.

"Companies can contribute to rising income inequality in two ways. As we’ve just discussed, pay gaps can increase within companies — between how much executives and administrative assistants are paid, for example. But studies now show that gaps between companies are the real drivers of income inequality."

https://hbr.org/2017/03/corporations-in-the-age-of-inequality

Arguments like the above seem to take the onus off corporations. Is this valid or is it just blowing smoke?

I just have this feeling that there is no role I could take that would not be mostly increasing the gap.

Is there an individual responsibility in socialism/communism? Or is all the system "fault"? (Not even sure if this question makes sense, but anyway)

If there is one, where does it begin and end? Is there only "collective responsibility"?

Any marxist wrote about this?

So this is my view of "coming to terms with being a socialist" This will be a long post so there will be a TLDR at the bottom. Also I'm exploring writing, so naturally, this will be written in a certain style, hope you enjoy and learn a bit from my experience.

I started this whole journey with a bit of a joke, really. One day, on a whim, I decided to buy Karl Marx's "Das Kapital" the complete trilogy, in an eBook format. Now, don’t get me wrong; I never actually read it. It just sat there, looming in my digital library like some intellectual trophy I could show off, even though I hadn’t cracked it open. But somehow, just having it near me, even in a virtual sense, started to poke at my curiosity. I found myself wondering what all the fuss was about. I mean, how did this dense, old text become the cornerstone of an entire political movement? So, naturally, I did what anyone would do: I turned to Google.

At first, it was all pretty casual. I started looking up some leftist thinkers, dipping my toes into the vast ocean of political theory. I kind of knew about Hasan Piker—his name had popped up a few times—so I decided to watch him for a bit. But if I'm being honest, his political commentary didn’t really grab me at first. It was more like background noise while I scrolled through my feed. I didn’t dive too deep.

The real turning point, though, was stumbling upon JT from "Second Thought." His video titled "Why You Should Be a Socialist in 2023" caught my attention. I watched it, and something clicked. This wasn’t just a bunch of outdated theory or abstract concepts; this was about real issues, right now. So, I started reading more, watching more YouTube videos, and engaging in conversations with left-leaning folks. Nothing too radical—just a slow, steady accumulation of ideas and perspectives that started to resonate with me.

But even as I found myself nodding along to a lot of what I was reading and hearing, I still hesitated to label myself as a socialist. It wasn’t that I didn’t agree with the principles; I did, more and more each day. But calling myself a socialist felt like crossing a line I wasn’t sure I was ready to cross. The thing is, I’d grown up hearing all these horror stories about socialism. You know, how the USSR supposedly wanted to starve 90 billion Ukrainians (which, yeah, sounds a bit off now that I think about it) or how the GDR was this dystopian nightmare where people were thrown in jail for owning toothbrushes. It was hard to shake those images, even if they were exaggerated or downright false.

So, there I was, caught between a growing belief in socialist principles and a fear of what that label might mean. I worried that by calling myself a socialist, I’d have to defend every action ever taken by any socialist state in history. I’d have to justify things I didn’t even fully understand yet. It felt like a big responsibility, and I wasn’t sure if I was ready to take it on.

But over time, I started to realize that being a socialist doesn’t mean agreeing with every single thing that’s ever been done in the name of socialism. It’s more about the core beliefs—the ideas of equality, justice, and the collective good—that drew me in the first place. I didn’t have to defend every point in history; I just had to understand where I stood and why.

So here I am, coming to terms with being a socialist. It’s been a gradual, sometimes hesitant journey, but one that feels increasingly right. And maybe one day, I’ll even get around to reading that eBook. Who knows?

TLDR: I started exploring socialism after buying "Das Kapital" as a joke. My curiosity grew, leading me to watch videos and engage with leftist ideas. Though I initially hesitated to call myself a socialist due to negative stereotypes, I eventually realized it's about core values like equality and justice, not blindly defending historical actions. Now, I'm more comfortable embracing socialism, even if I still haven't read that book.

I'm still learning, and one of the biggest challenges I see on this and other Reddit pages about Socialism comes down to definitions- and in a world where there's clearly enough pro and anti propaganda and not a ton of mainstream discussion, many misunderstandings could have foundations in unintentional bad faith- arguing past one another's meaning and understanding.

Exactly what the title says: I'm curious if "...private ownership of profit" would be more succinct, accepted and applicable to today's post-industrial revolution economy than private ownership of the means of production. I feel like profit encapsulates sectors like finance, data, and intellectual property that means of production doesn't make completely clear, but I am open to discussion.

Vietnam and China got me thinking about that, while i was reading lenin, because lenin talks about why reform is pointless at the beginning of the state and revolution, and he essentially says that, any socialism established through democratic means, because it would not overthrow the ruling class, it is bourgeois socialism and it does not adress class conflict, and it also leaves its self wide open to counter revolution. So that brings me to my question, in Vietnam and china private property is not abolished and markets create wealth inequality. there clearly is class conflict still.

i obviously would prefer a mixed economy over pure capitalism but due to the presence of a bourgeoisie it will erode over time as they gain wealth and power. it is what seems to have happened in china where at this point they seem to me, closer to social democracy than actual socialism.

What does Marx means by "Means of subsistence" ? Until now I understood means of subsistence by what the worker needs to survive. But on Wage Labour and Capital, Marx describes Capital as "raw materials, instruments of labour, and means of subsistence of all kinds, which are employed in producing new raw materials, new instruments, and new means of subsistence"

And also, what Marx mean by saying that Capital is the sum of commodities ? The chapter The Nature And Growth Of Capital is really headaching me...

Something I have been fascinated by is Lenin's unique organisational approach. The Leninisst vocabulary is one which is rich which useful words, such as dogmatist, liquidationist and revisionist.

If one were to want to read more about Lenin's organisation techniques, where should one go?

Firstly: I'm a baby socialist, not (yet) well-read and just starting to learn. I'm an avid anti-capitalist and fairly recently starting to learn about socialism. Please be gentle and kind with me :-)

I'm an American living in Germany since 2003 and have known and spoken with many people who grew up in the GDR, and one of my best friends grew up in the USSR. It's a mixed bag how people feel about then vs. now. One thing people seem to have not liked in the GDR and appreciate about reunified (capitalist) Germany is personal autonomy and freedom of choice. In the GDR it often wasn't possible to choose what one studied or which job one got, for example.

There seems to be this continuum whereby in capitalism there's a high degree of focus on the individual and individual choices, autonomy and "freedom" (in quotes because we all know how oppressive living under capitalism actually is). Under socialism there is at least the perception from outside but also what people who lived under socialism have complained about of lack of personal choice and freedom.

Is this accurate? Or can it be done differently?

Hi!

Still learning about communism, socialism, etc etc. I have a question that bugs my mind, which is the title for this post.

Maybe they dont turn into the dictatorships like those in the right wing such as Hitler or Franco, but I'm going off the premisse that dictatorship is the meer existance of supression of free speech and free will in whatever way it exists - for example, not being able to leave the country if wished.

I know the USSR didnt have to be a dictatorship and, from what I have read and been told, Stalin was the cause if its downfall, since Lenin had built it peacefully and, from what I know, it was going rather well (not without its difficulties, ofc). Also read in some comment section in this sub that these nations usually turn to dictatorships because of the foreign capitalist nations interfeering with the whole process of 'decapitalization'.

What can you teach me about this topic? I'd love to learn. Thanks! :)

Hello all,

I am currently conducting research into the intricate relationships between communist/socialist states and their military apparatuses, with a particular focus on the role of political officers and ideological departments in maintaining institutional cohesion and doctrinal alignment. My interest extends to the comparative analysis of how these systems functioned across various regimes.

Specifically, I am examining the operational methodologies of political officers nations such as the Soviet Union and those that were influenced by it in the in Warsaw Pact like the German Democratic Republic, and Poland, in contrast with their counterparts in the People's Republic of China, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and socialist-influenced states like Baathist Iraq, Syria and Egypt during the Nasser era.

Each of these contexts appears to have developed distinctive approaches to integrating political ideology with military strategy and operations.

I am seeking recommendations for comprehensive scholarly works/books that explore the interplay between political doctrine and military organization in these nations. Of special interest are resources that examine how these mechanisms were implemented and adapted to different historical, cultural, and geopolitical contexts.

Any suggestions for academic literature, monographs, or other authoritative sources on this subject would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

TLDR: How did socialist/communist states exert control over the military via political, organizational and external sources.

Regards,

A tired student researcher who can find no material on this topic

I'm aware that Marx believed actual prices for profit, or "prices of production" would vary wildly out of sync with the socially necessary labor time (value) required to produce the commodity. The common objection then is that there is no need for the LTV since it cannot explain prices adequately. However, there are some who say we must measure the aggregate of prices and find they correlate with average labor times (arguable), but others such as Diane Elson who believes that this type of mathematical rigor to the theory is a misreading of Marx. So what exactly is the relationship between value and price?

TLDR: I am looking for any post- 2000’s books that I can read physically, that critique capitalism & US imperialism and/or introduces the fundamental concepts of socialism in laymen’s terms. And ideally includes diagrams and pictures (like an all encompassing starter pack type book to socialism and leftist thought).

While I am not averse to reading older theory from people like Marx or reading free things online as many suggest, I honestly don’t have the brainpower or patience right now to grasp concepts from just plain text. Between my 9-5 and my ongoing bachelors degree, I would really appreciate any easier reading material that people know of. Hopefully something like this exists…

Additional context for making recommendations: I am a longtime lurker who just created my first Reddit account to post. I have had a wild last 5 years on the political spectrum (I’m from the USA). I’ve gone from Ignorant Centrist & Slightly-Rightwing in 2018-2019 as a 18M, to Social Democrat in 2020 (the pandemic helped “radicalize” me) and after 4 years of watching both parties be hypocritical and fail on promises it pushed me towards watching videos about Democratic Socialism. Especially after watching both parties dismiss the pandemic response and now commit atrocities in Palestine, I would like to spend more time reading theory and taking action locally to help where I can.

I feel like Democratic Socialism is seen like a dirty “fake” brand of socialism in some leftist spaces that I’ve seen, but honestly I like to consider myself as such because of two aspects:

One is that I have viewed voting Democratic past elections as a necessary temporary stopgap. And it has brought tangible changes in my local city and state especially. However I am definitely not against the idea of revolution or voting third party or anything (especially now that Democratic Party has gone mask off).

Two is the much more important reason, which is that my family and others don’t take as badly when I say I am a “Democratic Socialist” versus any other leftist school of thought name like “socialist” or “anarchist”. It’s much easier to digest, because they associate socialism and leftist schools of thought with authoritarian government. So including the word “democratic” before socialist tends to at least keep that accusation at bay. Makes me slightly more palatable.

Recommendations? Thoughts or critiques? I am open to criticism or suggestions to learn.

After the NFP (left alliance) won relatively the elections, Macron chose to not nominate a minister from the party. As it is a serious matter, leftists are now consequently calling him a dictator. What do you think could potentially happen now ? There sure will be riots everywhere . Do you think a major event could happen? However, modern problems require 18th century solutions😁😁😁

I’m talking about engaging in things like trading stocks, employing wage labour, renting out property, becoming a police officer, among other things. I know that there’s no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism, but I’m wondering if people who are serious about socialism should actively avoid engaging in some of these things.

There's something I quite never understood since I started studying about Marx and economics. Why there's so much unemployment ?

If there's more and more people working for the capitalists, the more and more their money will rise. And even if all the people of a country is working, the wages that will be payed won't even scratch the amount of money they have (the capitalists)

So why is there so much unemployment ?

Sorry if my question seems silly, but it's sillier to still have a doubt than asking...

In the latter chapters of Capital Vol. 1, Marx starts using these three terms. To my understanding, accumulation is the act of continuous growing of capital by means of profit. But I don't quite understand what is the difference between concentration and centralization, since both of these seem to be reffering to the process of smaller clusters of capital aggregating into bigger clusters, i.e., the result of competition gradually giving rise to monopolies. Could anyone clarify the difference between all these three terms?

I’ve seen people talk about how any real revolution will be violent by necessity because of the violent ways in which the ruling class will respond and these people often say that the status quo is enforced by violence as well. In what ways? I know the police are often used to break up protests and, in the past, labor strikes. But in what other ways is violence used to quell dissent and/or uphold the status quo? Especially in terms of the USA?

Edit: I hoped this hadn’t need to be said but I am a socialist myself and I’m just looking for information. Don’t act like I’m some reactionary coming in here to ask bad-faith questions

In older posts I saw people talk about this but I haven't seen anyone directly ask this question. I even saw some say that the difference between leftists and reactionaries is that the left actually has theory while the right does not. Would just classical economics count as rightwing theory? I've seen books written by your typical conservative pundits but those books tend to just be boomers complaining about millennials and the "woke mob" which is obviously unserious.

I find it weird that while the "far left" has concepts like the labor theory of value, surplus labor, dialectics, etc, the "far right" is just xenophobia and scapegoating. Am I just so biased that I'm ignorant to serious rightwing/conservative analysis or is xenophobia and fearmongering really all they have?

I know I asked like 6 different questions but it's something I've been thinking about for awhile.

I recently started volunteering with a worker's association that I now understand to be part of the NATLFED umbrella in the US. The stated goals of the organization seem good enough (organization of labor, particularly service workers, and mutual aid programs) but there are a few strange things too (their antiquated systems, the fact that they don't really affiliate with other worker or socialist organizations). I've read some claims that they are a cult, but I'm not sure how much of that to attribute to the usual knee-jerk red scare BS that gets attached to every socialist organization.

Probably the most concerning element is that their founder, Gino Perente, seems to have been a cult-of-personality type of individual who made very grandiose claims about his own experience and potentially abused volunteers. Would be curious if anyone else has experience with them. Am I wasting my time there? Part of me feels like even if the motives of the organization are good, their antiquated tactics and need to cannibalize resources to sustain their full-time volunteers makes them somewhat of a waste of time when there are other organizations that operate more efficiently. Does anyone here have experience in one of their organizations?