For starters, some people, even if small in number, will always not give a crap about politics. I assume everyone agrees about this, and I will come back to this point in a second.

However, I also think some people, even if small in number, want to have someone in charge of them. Native American tribes had and have hierarchies, and I ask you to point to a society that didn't. Anarchist communities also had/have hierarchies, for example someone was shot in the CHAZ zone for trying to get food by an armed authority figure.

So, if you were to really try to get rid of hierarchies, you would have to punish people who wanted them, would you not? Otherwise they could grow too large and be a threat to the stateless, classless society, right? And for people who don't care about politics, they are much more likely to go along with what others say around them. So if their pastor, who likes hierarchies, tells them they will live in a such manner, wouldn't they all have to be punished or imprisoned?

And if you agree, I ask you this: who is deciding who gets punished and imprisoned in a stateless society? A mob?

Very simple question, I get why we would want to immediately get rid of markets in essential goods. But what I have never understood is why former socialist experiments focussed on producing almost everything through central planning, without having fully developed productive forces. They weren't able to plan everything effectively so why would perfume need to be produced by the state or state owned companies? Isn't it much more efficient to leave those things to social wealth funds owned bussineses, sole proprietors or worker cooperatives.

Edit: made some edits for clarity. Why oppose markets of non essential goods before having the capabilities to efficiently centrally plan everything.

This may not really fit the debate theme of the sub but I feel like asking a communist sub, so... yeah.

I have a pretty dark, pessimistic view of the future. I'm afraid. In a way I feel that humanity has reached a peak and that's past us now.

It's not death itself that I'm afraid of, or not directly. Say nuclear war were to break out tomorrow, we would just be dead, and that's it. There wouldn't really be protracted suffering to it. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but you get what I mean...

What I'm afraid of is the future, and things getting worse and worse.

That's why I'm asking neuroatypical folks, maybe they can relate to this. I have ADHD and likely autism. The last time I've been working a job, I ended up feeling that all I was doing was surviving capitalism -- working, or recuperating from work, and not really doing much else. I felt that I was losing touch with my friends and the outer world, that my social contacts were limited to the workplace. I hate it. It feels like living in a box. As I sat at my desk, dealing with random requests, I had that feeling -- life isn't supposed to be like that, it's a depressing waste.

It's already hard enough for me to keep a job and function under capitalism.

Then, the ruling class' entire political project is "we will make your life harder and shittier so we can get richer". We have no power to stop it or even slow it down. Oh and we will also destroy the environment while doing so. Everything about it feels deeply wrong and revolting, yet what can we do?

I'm not only entirely hopeless, but scared. I can foresee a point where it's just no longer possible for me to function in this hellhole. Then what?

It's not hard to see where things are headed. Tell the majority that their conditions will improve (or atleast degrade less) if they accept throwing some minorities under the bus, and they'll roll with it. Except I'm part of some of these minorities.

I had some interest in communism because some of the stuff is very interesting and I agree with it. But honestly... I don't know.

For example, the IMT talks about revolutionary optimism. I respect those who can maintain such optimism. To me, hoping for anything feels like praying for a holy miracle at this point. I don't really see any sort of worldwide revolutionary movement occuring in this age, more like countries going to war over dwindling resources. I don't know about you, but to me, the sheer state of the world, the environment, the morale and mindset of the people, and the direction we're headed in, forbid any sort of revolutionary or even remotely progressive future.

I'm open to being told that I'm wrong or anything. But also, if there are any neuroatypical folks here, can you relate to this at all?

If I work at mcdonalds and i'm a basic employee what do my managers gain for becoming managers? why would I want to become a manager? Are they given more?

So, I've been seeing a lot of posts criticizing capitalism and globalization lately, which is all well and good. But as someone who loves muffins, how would a muffin enthusiast like me get to enjoy these sweet treats in a communist society? Would they still be available, and how would the whole process work?

Edit: Most importantly how does a communist society and capitalist society differ in regards to exchanges of time, materials ect. 

Striking and collective bargaining have been attacked by Alberta. A few days ago, Edmonton school support workers walked off of the job despite the provincial government ordering them not to under the conditions of a disputes inquiry board. Negotiations had stalled, and so a strike began, but it was initiated against the law. Under no circumstances, ever, should a strike be illegal. Not under a DIB, not under the notwithstanding clause, not under the emergencies act. Link in comments.

So I started dating her around a month ish ago and now she tells me she’s sort of a Zionist? We never really discussed politics before and we still haven’t really. A few days ago we walked past a Pro Palestinian march and she got upset and we started arguing. How can I introduce this concept to her, and should I? Because I’m not sure I can date a Zionist. Thanks,

Extra context she’s Jewish? (Which is okay)

I have schizoid personality disorder (Cluster A), and I know comrades who have neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism, ADHD, etc. They are more likely to lean towards left. Those who fit in this category notice they don't fit in a certain system, thus seek to leave such system and find one that nourishes them.

From my observations, people I know or have seen on the news committing atrocities are most likely Cluster B (Anti-social, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Borderline, or Histrionic), or could be a sociopath. They often lean towards liberalism or fascism.

For example, no matter what you tell a liberal about the ongoing genocide in Palestine, they will still vote for Kamala Harris. Well, many I've tried convincing happened to fall in the Cluster B category.

I may have a closed-off view on this as I'm only a beginner in psychology. But I've noticed this throughout my life. The most oppressive people fell in the cluster B category. This also might be a question for the first world, as I know that countries who are extremely poor, enslaved and taken advantage of, would revolt for socialism due to severe oppression.

I would like to note that this isn't a complete determining factor but I could imagine it being one of the factors to a person's political ideology? I'm not sure :( Would love to talk more about this with you all.

I was debating a couple of friends and faring very well when one of them argued that if historical "communism" had a somewhat equal quality of life to that of capitalist countries, how could I explain that the state had to take meassures to restrict the emigration of its population to capitalist countries. Examples of this would be Berlin and Cuba. I didn't know how to respond and lost some credibility in the debate. What would you say?

Editing to add this paragraph - The question is about today & the practical reason why this isn't happening today. Claiming that 'something will happen in future' is okay but that doesn't answer why jobs are not provided today.

As per most/all communists, private business exploits workers (& I agree with that).

If state/govt (aspiring or claiming to be communist) provides non-explotative jobs to all citizens, no citizen will have to work for private business.

So, why doesn't every state/govt (aspiring or claiming to be communist) provide jobs that are not exploitative in countries like China, Vietnam etc? Why are private businesses needed in China, Vietnam?

If the issue/claim is that, there isn't enough work for all, then the available work can be distributed among 100% population - instead of govt hiring few people to do the work.

Hey yall. I have a problem with my current state of friendships and family. Since i began my jurney to the left side of the force, i noticed a lot of (currently all except one) my friends have very neo-liberal and/or konservativ standpoints. As long as we are not talking about politics its all ok, but as soon we start, i often get angry pretty fast, because i dont wanna debate the tenth time about why it is not good to deport criminal immigrants and stuff like that. I dont think that they are bad people but i often feel like they are to comfortable with their current situation. It is fun to be around and do stuff together, but i feel weird about it sometimes and with 21 i am honestly a bit scared to loose my whole social contacts because as an introverted person i have hard times finding new friends

I am a sort of posted worker for my company, where I am working abroad and my employer covers my accomodation costs. Over the past 6 months I've saved enough money for a down payment for an apartment in my home country. At the same time, my partner and his housemates have received an eviction notice for their house, as the landlord claims he wants to move in.

My plan is to purchase a two-bed apartment, and for my boyfriend to live there for free, or for his share of bills. I want to move back home in the next 6 months and live with him. However, now that I have mentioned purchasing a property in work, my coworkers are making statements like "no don't move your boyfriend in, rent the apartment and make a second salary" or "if I was rich I would buy lots of houses so I would never have to work again."

To be honest, this attitude disgusts me, but I don't want to upset my friends. I just don't know what words to use to explain to them that this dream they have is just to exploit people who are working and struggling - just like them!

Ill use the soviet union for this example so from the communist/ left perspective Marxist will use western imperialism is bad. But let's say the soviet union decided to invade and prop up a communist/pro-soviet government is that also as bad ? Or is just "soviet rules for me usa rules not for me"

As I understand it, Marx believed capitalism was a necessary step after feudalism, and that after it's served its purpose communism will replace capitalism.

But what if he, Lenin and modern day communists all had the timing wrong? What if capitalism has more gas in the tank? Is it possible communists get caught in the trap that it's more interesting if communism happens in their lifetime and they get to be part of the revolution.

I would argue the more technology increases the more communism makes sense because difference in worker quality, talent and training becomes more irrelevant. For example if in the future every worker is just doing an easy job pushing buttons I believe this fixes some of the problems with communist model which works better with everyone being the same quality of worker. Likewise the whole "who does the bad/dangerous jobs" criticism gets erased if it's all machines. But I do not believe that time is now personally as there's still a lot of jobs that require skilled people not machines.

i would love to know more

I have been reading about anthropology and something I found was that immediate return hunter-gatherers had democratic, classless and egalitarian societies (which communists hope to usher in) but the invention of agriculture and management of resources lead to class structures.

Given the historical evidence that no large-scale society managing resources has avoided class structures since the Agricultural Revolution, can communism realistically achieve its goal of a classless society?

I am not saying class is natural but it is an inevitability of large scale human organization

Why don't we also share personal property think about how many it could save it could stop hunger it could stop housing problem completely it could completely end every problem we have if everyone is family everyone is fed everyone has everything

Structure of the post: Unrelated comments about my last post, definition of the thesis, counter-evidence, questions

Unrelated comments:

I last posted here about the Cuban embargo and upon the subreddit's rebuttals and other statistical information, which I got from a Cuban living there, have changed my position. I appreciated the platform and rich discussion this platform gave me.

Definition of the thesis: The imperial core keeps the imperial periphery underdeveloped through unequal exchange. Unequal exchange is the exploitation of third world labor meaning that workers in less developed countries and migrants from third world countries in the core receive much lower wages while producing more or the same labor. Resources are extracted for cheaper prices by the core from the periphery, meanwhile the core produces higher priced commodities with them. This is the primary reason, according to Marxists, that the third world is poor and underdeveloped.

Counter Evidence: China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Turkey have become developed nations. All of them except for China are now considered part of the "West"/Imperial core. If capital was already concentrated in Europe and North America, these countries, which were all colonized, (except for Turkey and Japan which was firebombed, occupied by the USA, and decimated after ww2) should not have developed into strong economies because they were kept down by the core. Turkey is also a strong economy with some problems, but it's certainly the best economy except for Israel in West Asia/Middle east.

Questions: How did these countries manage to integrate into the west?

Does this contradict the underdevelopment thesis?

Does this show that capitalism has any merit? If not, then why?

Can other countries follow the same model, and if not, why?

You don't have to answer every question: only answer the ones you feel best qualified to talk about.

For those who don't know, Piratism is an ideology that was originally based on challenging the current copyright system that many countries have today. But since it has expanded to reach much farther from just copyright. Piratism, at least United States Piratism advocates for the following:

• Free trade, and removal of copyright on all tools for communication, ideas, culture, knowledge, and sentiments.

• Expanding privacy protections for everyone. (LGBTQ+, Womens, and Personal rights are included with this)

• Reforming copyright, or even outright abolishing it entirely

• Focusing on what works as opposed to idealism.

• Making government far more transparent.

• Humanism, and opening up the world borders.

• Anti-Corporatism, fighting big corporations.

• Cooperative economy via Swarm Economics.

• Diversity in both governing, system, and in general.

• Resilience within the system, and infrastructure to make sure it lasts.

• Mending relation's with Latin American countries to fix past wrongdoings, while empowering international cooperation.

• Empowering self-determination.

• Making legislation based off facts, research, and not opposing human rights.

Those are the basic points of US Piratism, and I'm curious on what you guys, the communists think of it. What are your critiques, what do you guys like, or even pointing out similarities between forms of Communism, and Piratism.

We must meet, in the heat of the battle, with the leading cadres to discuss, analyse, expand on, and draft plans and strategies to take up issues and elaborate ideas, as when an army’s general staff meets. We must use solid arguments to talk to members and non-members, to speak to those who may be confused or even to discuss and debate with those holding positions contrary to those of the Revolution or who are influenced by imperialist ideology in this great battle of ideas we have been waging for years now, precisely in order to carry out the heroic deed of resisting against the most politically, militarily, economically, technologically and culturally powerful empire that has ever existed. Young cadres must be well prepared for this task.

-- Fidel Castro

In the aftermath of the dissolution of the USSR--and the subsequent catastrophic drop in quality of life throughout socialist Europe as, one by one, these states were politically captured by the US--a general calamity ensued that could do nothing but demoralize the international socialist movement. The world witnessed the colossus that was the socialist bloc falter; with, often, dire consequences for the societies as they transitioned back to capitalism with a new set of thuggish bourgeoisie and land barons. Millions of excess deaths occurred in the Aftermath of '91--an entire generation who was forced to pawn their possessions to meek out a meagre existence in the atrophied and ever-decaying remannts of the economies that had once rivaled the West. Life expectancy plummeted, infant mortality skyrocketed, vaccination rates fell, caloric intake took a nose dive. Capitalism absolutely ravaged countries such as Bulgaria, Lithuania, Ukraine, Russia, etc.

This demoralization--as the first socialist state in history fell and took half the communist bloc with it--has had a profound effect on the course that communist parties throughout the world (most especially in the imperial core) have taken. Fukuyama's supposed "End of History" and the subsequent tragedy witnessed in the 90's and 2000's as an unrivaled US hegemony lashed out against the world and cannibalized its own economy to drive up profit saw many in the world embracing defeatist stances: As those in the Global North saw wages stagnate, and their labor protections stripped, the implementation of austerity policies, as they were forced by their circumstances to see their kin shipped off to die and to kill breaking country after country to make them subservient to the hegemon; there became a real sense that the end of history had been achieved--and for many, this of course, led them to doomerism.

A global USian hegemony that would last much longer would, as we are keenly aware today, prevent any rapid and meaningful global leadership towards the emergency of combatting climate change and ecological disaster. Capitalism, it is something of a trope, is going to kill the world for profit. How many socialists among us in these past few decades have felt that gnawing existential despair over this exact dilemma at some point in our lives? How many have felt powerless in the face of the enormity, the sheer magnitude, of that crisis? It seems impossible to fix from that vantage point.

Yet, even as the US drags the world to the brink of ruin, pulling the leashes of its lackey states and client-regimes and arraying its pieces carefully on the board; even as the US poises to strike at its near-peer up-and-coming rivals to wipe out this competition which is eroding its near-global sphere of--military, cultural, tech, media, and economic--influence; the world is poised on the edge of a knife and the momentum favors China and the global south, the vastly more populous portion of the planet, the majority of humanity.

In this upheaval, the reigning hegemon--the king of kings--must try to keep his coterie of polities together through loyalty or intimidation and prioritize and effectively destroy those who will not submit to this hierarchy willingly. We see unfolding before our eyes the strategy as it plays out: The US has three big near-peer rivals outside of its bloc: Russia, Iran, and China. We observe the US attempt regime change in Russia via the strategy of economic collapse, we see the US and Israel chomping at the bit for war with Iran, and we watch as the US retools the entire Marine Corps for war with China. All three have been victims of US "containment" strategies for decades; all three have been subjected to economic warfare via unilateral sanctions on the part of the hegemon who controls the international monetary order; and all three have been prospering despite this once ruinous USian stranglehold.

In the US' unilateral economic terrorism against Venezuela, millions have died; in the US' unilateral economic terrorism against Russia the Russian economy has grown stronger than before *while* defeating the (formerly) second-largest military power in Europe, directly supplied with materiel and intel and commanded by the global hegemon. In the US' sanctions against Russia, which less than a quarter of the countries on Earth obeyed/adopted, we witness a split that is causing an ever growing fissure between two increasingly polarized halves of the world. The US et cronies, and the rest of humanity.

We are witnessing the dedollarization of the world, even to the extent that the former president--and enjoyer of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini--has openly said he would punish any country that trades for goods or oil in any other currency than the US dollar. The empire is panicking. The contradictions are intensifying.

We are witnessing the progressive decline of and death throes of empire. Now, in this moment, is the time where the battle of ideas is the most crucial--on this fulcrum the balance of the social relations to labor is being shifted inexorably towards socialism. The world is becoming free by degrees, unfettering the economic base and allowing the productive forces to advance in these "underdeveloped" (overexploited) countries.

Engaging in ideological struggle will help clear the way towards the building of socialism once material conditions are sufficiently favorable, and help give the resistance to the increasingly fascist regimes of the West a revolutionary consciousness capable of directing the revolution and defending it from co-option, subversion, sabotage, wrecking, opportunism, political repression, assassination, etc.--this is the essence behind the function that is the vanguard of the proletariat. The Battle of Ideas must be waged, and it must be won. Onward, then, comrades--to the inevitable victory of socialism and communism! Long live the immortal science of Marxism-Leninism!

>There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.”“There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.”

― Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Sooner, rather than later, the world will witness weeks in which decades happen.

Thoughts?

Both work for socialism. Both see that capitalism must end. Both recognize the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat. So what is the difference? Method?

Good morning comrades.

I myself im not a communist but as kierkeegard might put it, am a distant admirer of communism.

I have been reading lukacs lately and I think I understand class consciousness as the ability to transcend burgeoise consciousness that sees reality as the product of ideas that manifest reality and instead real consciousness realizes that reality is shaped by the activity of the working class, however in communist debates and analysis there seems to be a huge abundance of burgeoise style arguments presented. for example, they will tell you how the economy is set up for the rich, and only to protect the interests of the burgeoise but yet the form of this content still has a burgeoise outlook on reality that looks to only describe the inner comntradictions of reality as if this was a way to change said contradictions.

Now enough dross from me, myspecific quesiotn is:

givwen the fact that despite efforts to awaken the working class to it's power to shape reality, in many points in history when significant changes in material conditions have arised, the working class seems to keep betraying themselves, I know the theoretical justification for it sure, but what are forms of analysis that seek to transcend burgeoise presentation of facts that you have seen as effective in awakening the working class?

from a kierkeegard aficionado, thanks in advance.

While arguing with a friend, ai though about comparing the ultimate goal of capitalism and communism. Or even how the perfect capitalist society would be versus the perfect communist society.

I came to the following:

• the ultimate goal of capitalism is to increase capital, or to profit with lowest possible costs. In the optimal capitalist society the workers would be basically slaves working for the rulling class.

• the ultimate goal of communism is to have a self sufficient society where each and every person has a function in maintaining the society working. Here all citizens are equals and must have all their basic need fullfied.

Am I somewhat right in my simplifications? Where did I get things wrong? How could I improve?

My goal was to show, despite not living in the perfect capitalist society if we where to live in one it would be so much worse than what we have now. In comparison if we lived in a socialist/communist society the most remotely possible from being the perfected one it would still be better than our current capitalist society and even more from the perfect capitalist society.

I ask this because, although I have seen some comrades cite it as a reference, it seems to me that it is obviously terribly flawed. It seems to me that it is above all a propaganda tool, since for example all the mentions of Trotsky in the book are pejorative despite the fact that he unquestionably played a fundamental role in the October revolution (it is not necessary to be a Trotskyist to admit this, I am not). Furthermore, at least the edition to which I have access, does not even provide sources. However, I would like to know the perspective of some comrade who has read the entire book or even spent time studying it.

From "Our Enemy The State" by Albert Jay Nock (1935)

Heretofore in this country sudden crises of misfortune have been met by a mobilization of social power. In fact (except for certain institutional enterprises like the home for the aged, the lunatic-asylum, city-hospital and county-poorhouse) destitution, unemployment, "depression"and similar ills, have been no concern of the State, but have been relieved by the application of social power. Under Mr. Roosevelt, however, the State assumed this function, publicly announcing the doctrine, brand-new in our history, that the State owes its citizens a living. Students of politics, of course, saw in this merely an astute proposal for a prodigious enhancement of State power; merely what, as long ago as 1794, James Madison called "the old trick of turning every contingency into a resource for accumulating force in the government"; and the passage of time has proved that they were right. The effect of this upon the balance between State power and social power is clear, and also its effect of a general indoctrination with the idea that an exercise of social power upon such matters is no longer called for.

It is largely in this way that the progressive conversion of social power into State power becomes acceptable and gets itself accepted. [1] When the Johnstown flood occurred, social power was immediately mobilized and applied with intelligence and vigour. Its abundance, measured by money alone, was so great that when everything was finally put in order, something like a million dollars remained. If such a catastrophe happened now, not only is social power perhaps too depleted for the like exercise, but the general instinct would be to let the State see to it. Not only has social power atrophied to that extent, but the disposition to exercise it in that particular direction has atrophied with it. If the State has made such matters its business, and has confiscated the social power necessary to deal with them, why, let it deal with them. We can get some kind of rough measure of this general atrophy by our own disposition when approached by a beggar. Two years ago we might have been moved to give him something; today we are moved to refer him to the State's relief-agency. The State has said to society, You are either not exercising enough power to meet the emergency, or are exercising it in what I think is an incompetent way, so I shall confiscate your power, and exercise it to suit myself. Hence when a beggar asks us for a quarter, our instinct is to say that the State has already confiscated our quarter for his benefit, and he should go to the State about it.

Every positive intervention that the State makes upon industry and commerce has a similar effect. When the State intervenes to fix wages or prices, or to prescribe the conditions of competition, it virtually tells the enterpriser that he is not exercising social power in the right way, and therefore it proposes to confiscate his power and exercise it according to the State's own judgment of what is best. Hence the enterpriser's instinct is to let the State look after the consequences. As a simple illustration of this, a manufacturer of a highly specialized type of textiles was saying to me the other day that he had kept his mill going at a loss for five years because he did not want to turn his workpeople on the street in such hard times, but now that the State had stepped in to tell him how he must run his business, the State might jolly well take the responsibility.

[1] Not long ago Professor Laski commented on the prevalence of this enervation among our young people, especially among our student- population. It has several contributing causes, but it is mainly to be accounted for, I think, by the unvarying uniformity of our experience. The State's pretensions have been so invariably extravagant, the disparity between them and its conduct so invariably manifest, that one could hardly expect anything else. Probably the protest against our imperialism in the Pacific and the Caribbean, after the Spanish War, marked the last major effort of an impotent and moribund decency. Mr. Laski's comparisons with student-bodies in England and Europe lose some of their force when it is remembered that the devices of a fixed term and an irresponsible executive render the American State peculiarly insensitive to protest and inaccessible to effective censure. As Mr. Jefferson said, the one resource of impeachment is "not even a scarecrow."

"The Johnstown Flood" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnstown_Flood

I’m a big fan of socialism and communism although not very well educated. That’s why I’m asking this question. Probably it doesn’t make sense here. But imagine the type of projects that are being funded right now by huge corporations. Like large language models or making fusion reactors. Some of these projects are starting because there is an interest by few people who have a lot of assets and choose to fund them. Does communism put restrictions on projects that require crazy amounts of resources and they’re probably not functional or useful for a very long time? If not how would it get started?

Edit: I just realised term funding doesn’t make sense in a communist society, but you get the idea

So the argument many communists make is that none of the genocidal police states that claimed to be comminist in the past actually were communist states.

Given that this is true, then you are still left with the fact, that every time someone trys to create a communist state it ends in a genocidal police state.

Now, if you are a communist yourself, have you ever asked yourself why that is? And why not every capitalist country ends up to be a genocidal police state?

And if you know all that, why, after more than 10 trys of communism that all ended the exact same way, would you want to try it again?

I offer a willing and good faith ear to hear out the tenants of communism, I suggest only wise users among you post itt. I am deeply knowledgeable about the philosophy off communism, but skeptical about the applicability. Communism appears to contradict itself, claiming equality while also propping up a massively powerful government to control society. How do you resolve this? Many people have also died of starvation under communism, why do you think this is? Many people have tried to flee communism, why would they do this if it is so great? Why was the USSR dissolved- and does not the dissolution imply lack of sustainability under communism? Why is communist art/architecture so soulless and bad?

I'm willing to change my mind, but I'm a strong minded man who does not change easily at all. so good luck.

EDIT:

Sorry, I got banned for 3 days by communists so could not reply. I'll reply to the reasonably good faith responses soon enough.