we all know that Rednote has shown the world, particularly in America, that China isn’t the big bad the Capitalists would like us to believe.

yes China and the CCP do bad things, we can all agree there as no country is perfect but when we compare the life the Chinese ppl have compared to the US and the current attitude the Western World has to the US i believe we may see the start of a cultural and geopolitical shift.

and if i may be so bold we may very well be seeing a small start into what may become a massive historical event

I believe that the next socialist republic will have a economic form like Synco or Cybersyn which was a plannified form of economy by allende, which tried to put a decision support system distributed decision support system to aid in the management of the national economy and was controlled by a national network of telex machines that were linked to one mainframe computer

I believe that with the current technological breakthroughs that we haved on AI and automation we should focus on making a AI that not only can process information in seconds but also that it can make its own decision making and ideas for the improvement of the economy and the well being of both the enviroment but also the people, instead of just copy pasting information on the internet

Im still thinking on how it would work and how we could achieve this level of AI inteligence but its intresting on seeing the revolution being aid by AI

I bet im going to get called utopian

Many socialists say capitalism isn't related to innovation. Firstly, capitalism doesn't drive innovation by itself. However, a market economy (including a capitalist one) can and does push innovation because of competition. Medicines like Aspirin are a testament to this.

But wait, you ask, why did the USSR have so many inventions? They beat the Americans into space! This is true, and here is why:

• The USSR used "capitalist" style methods to push scientists to develop certain innovations. Like the atom bomb, where Beria promised nice homes, cars, etc to the scientists for their successes.
• Humans will innovate without rewards and competition, but having them is helpful nonetheless. The USSR knew this, and in turn they had their own type of competition, with state-driven rivalries between different different industries.
• The biggest reason: The USSR provided free education for all of it citizens up to the PhD level. Honestly, this in itself is more effective than competition, rewards, or anything of the sort. Having tens of millions of people with virtually unlimited access to education can and will produce a society filled with innovations.

The USA would see it's innovation boom take off after numerous policies expanding higher education. Frederick Terman, considered the 'father of silicion valley,' was a recipient of of the GI bill! My point? Higher education is the number one driver of innovation.

I personally don't view The DPRK as a Marxist state, i want to hear others opinions surrounding it.

My view is that the DPRK operates more like a traditional East Asian Monarchy.

The entire state is controlled primarily by the Kim family, making it a Dynastical rule.

The leaders of the DPRK are treated like Gods which creates a Theocratic element, which was extremely common in East Asian Monarchies.

The government and lands are organised by individual families who are loyal to the Kims.

It is my opinion that we as Marxists must call the DPRK for what they are. A Theocratic Monarchy that has fooled the world into thinking it's Communist

This is solely for the sake of Argument.

Buddhist teachings include selflessness and to have a strong sense of Community.

To not be greedy and to be compassionate. In Buddhism there is whats called a Boddhisatva, context many can mistake these beings for Gods but in reality they are individuals who attained enlightenment and continue down the cycle of life and death to teach, many of them have teachings that aim to inspire ppl.

One of the more famous Boddhisatva's is Avalokiteshvara, the Boddhisatva of Compassion. I personally believe the teachings of Buddhism are compatible with Marxism and can be used to help create a more selfless and communal based society.

Thats my argument.

When communist revolutions are successful, like in Russia, China, North Korea. How does the new ruling class justify their rule over the proletariat? Even if they don't consider themselves part of the bourgeoisie, there is absolutely no structures in place in those governments that prevent the leaders from being corrupt and becoming a part of the boutgeoisie, as seen. What do they do to hide this obvious fact from their revolutionary fighters, the public, and themselves?

Relative to 20th century leftism, liberals are right-wing, progressives are right-wing, and China is right-wing.

It seems there is no truly left-wing ideology that is prominent in the 21st century. You have Antifa, the Zapatistas, and various obscure leftist groups, but that's about it.

Being a fan of the Cold War and Russian history I find it very surprising that people praise him so much. The Great purge comes to mind when I think of his atrocities, his intense paranoia lead to the death of so many people.

I’m not attacking anyone’s beliefs or saying you’re wrong I’m just curious.

If you decide to give me your opinion thank you so much and I hope you have a fantastic day.

(This is going to seem like a debate or challenge, but it's not. I would not use massacres to try to make cheap points about capitalism. Bear with me on the first part and you'll see what I mean at the end.)

I've previously made the argument on here that fascism is not only tied only capitalism, or capitalism in decay. I pointed to Nazbols as an example of people who have communist economics and the social policies of Nazis.

Now let's look at Israel. They have a high standard of living for most of its citizens: low homelessness, medium-to-high wages, etc. But you have elected ministers like Smotrich, who have called for the killing of all Palestinians. And actions from the IDF, like destroying every hospital in Gaza. This leads me to two questions:

1) Wouldn't Israel prove that fascism can occur when capitalism is doing just fine?

2) If fascism can occur when capitalism isn't in decay, how is non-decayed capitalism (like in Israel) tied to fascism?

These aren't gotcha questions. I'm sure there are answers to both of 1 and 2. Thank you.

While reading through this sub and its capitalist counterpart I've realized that there is a lot of confusion on what exactly the definitions of capitalism and socialism are. Me personally I have always thought of them as more of umbrella terms for private vs. social ownership of products and services, but both on here and on the other subs I've been seeing "solutions to capitalism/socialism" that only work very specific circumstances. This dangerous for a myriad of reasons, but mainly its because misconceptions can run wild if don't use definite terms. such as using American capitalism as a judgment for the concept is itself is just as unfair as using socialism socialism/communism as judgment for the concept itself. specifically America has a subset of capitalism called "corporatism" which has its flaws and benefits same as any system of economics (though corporatism isn't necessarily good it's still not as bad monopolism or traditionalist economies). I'm not on either side of this debate just wanted see you're guy's opinions on this.

Hello from a Polish socialist. ;)

As far as I know (this might not be the full picture though) is that all communist economies had two major flaws

1. Lack of motivation to innovate
2. Inefficient resource allocation due to lack of information about where stuff is needed (due to lack of price signals).

Could these be remedied in any way?

When I post my idea of cooperative capitalism on here, some replies call it socialism. I would think if you had a society that could potentially have billionaires (though I've realized I don't think mine can), and some private residential property, it's not socialist. This got me thinking about the larger issue of class, socialism, and the profit model.

So my questions are:

1. Can socialism have class? If so, where is the line drawn? Can millionaires exist? Billionaires?

• If class can exist, is it only if the system plans to get rid of it one day, like (theoretically) China or Vietnam?

2. Can the profit model exist under socialism? What about a profit-adjacent/breaking even model?

• If the answer is no, does this mean no society has ever been 'sufficiently' socialist?

I know answers will be different, but I hope to see one that makes the most sense to me. Thank you.

I took a screenshot of the og comment, but no attachments allowed, so.

6d ago, someone in the Communism sub replied this to a deleted parent comment:

"Marxism is perfect. You are the one who fails to live up to it".

I want a discussion of who in here agrees with that statement. I am not anti-communism in its entirety, but staunch Communists or those more well versed in its theories seem to not have many critiques of it, and if someone brings critiques forth, they're immediately shot down (albeit a lot of the time with backed up evidence, but in other cases, just like this).

As a Black American, in my own opinion, I find that the concerns of racism towards my community aren't dealt with in the literature, or in organizing circles. The argument more or less goes: "when classism falls, so too will racism". Instead of acknowledging and working towards breaking down racism, which will not just disappear if Capitalism + classism does, we're shrugged off and told that "Communism just works". I do not rock with that. And this comment seems very sure in itself as Marxism being this "perfect" thing will no faults. It's just fucking odd. Nothing is, or ever will be perfect.

So what are your thoughts?

Edit: One of the mods in this sub must have banned me from commenting and not let me know with a message, because I can no longer reply to messages. However, if you reply to me that I don't understand what racism really is, or that just because I am a literal DESCENDANT OF SLAVES doesn't mean I fully understand racism, you will be blocked. Thanks.

Sorry for such a long post, but I wanted to highlight how my idea of cooperative capitalism fixes nearly every issue present-day capitalism has. This counters the notion capitalism can't be reformed:

The Environment, High Prices, & the Exploitation of the Global South

Businesses have built in circular supply chains. Thus they use recycled materials for products and incentivizing consumers to return old items. Businesses also partner with recycling centers and materials processors for material reuse.

• To enforce this, citizens own a class of citizen shares in all businesses which give them the right to vote on eco-ceilings and environmental usage

Growth, Labor, High Prices, & the Exploitation of the Global South

1. Acceptable businesses are ESOPs (legit ones like Publix) and/or cooperatives (labor). This way no stock market exists (growth), and you can't have outside shareholders besides employees (global south). I don't believe in LVT which is why I'm fine with founders owning more shares/profits (ESOPs), as long as there are no outside shareholders and employees own a large share %

• To address high prices, aforementioned citizen shares give consumers the right to profits (for high grossing businesses), operating as a type of UBI

The Market Not Meeting Certain Needs (like Producing Drugs for Rare Diseases)

1. Aforementioned citizen shares allow consumers to petition for unmet products, like rare drugs. Citizens fund development via bonds, and thus share profits from those bonds once sold.

2. State enterprises operate in areas of need for citizens

Non Affordable Housing + The Issue of Landlords/Housing Shortages

Properties are bought and sold traditionally, but residential owners can’t use them for business (except selling); this gets rid of renting. State housing then provides apartments that low-income citizens own after 5 years, while private-public cooperatives offer other citizens the opportunity to buy shares in co-ops for affordable housing and governance participation

https://youtu.be/juT2SpM1kOY?si=1ArbPeAA91qmmkpc

I recently began looking into communism, reading Marx and listening to youtube videos and some Zixek stuff. I find all of it really refreshing as someone who has always loathed money and values equality for working people.As amazing as it all sounds I see it historically leading to totalitarianism authoritarianism, or even fascism. I don’t want to go down that path and be radicalized in that way.

I’m a bit worried getting on here and r/communism, because I see so much support for people like Castro and Lenin and the USSR and China and Cuba. These examples of trying to implement Communism seem to lead to more violence and destruction for the proletariat than improvement. Russia is run by the KGB who enforce their rule of the working class with violence, and China does similar as well.

I’m aware my world view is likely warped by western society, but I find myself hesitant to put faith in a system that has led to so much bloodshed and destruction of everyday working people when its goal seems to be the opposite.

So I guess my question is: Why do you believe in communism despite its history, and what would you tell someone who’s just starting to get into it?

Currently wondering if communism as a whole works. I'm currently studying the Russian revolution but I realized that the entire point of communism was to get rid of social heiarchy, but in turn it would become an anarchy without a government since no one can technically rule over the others. I mean, someone's gotta distribute the goods. Also, I've been very skeptical of communists since a lot like Stalin which...uhhh...killed 27 million people 💀. Anyways communism seems appealing on paper but when attempted to be implemented it doesn't seem to work. There's a reason why people literally leave on homemade rafts to attempt to go to the west. So most "communist" countries just adopt socialism but I feel they are going more and more to capitalism lol. I saw this is a debate community too so I assume I (as a capitalist) can come and ask you guys some questions. Also it's nice if you guys hear opinions on the "other side" as this would basically be an echo chamber with only communists.

Should we start to organize? After the surge of the right and right-wing policies are being implanted, is it time to organize and unite as a unite front?

I get the idea that communists think a mixture of people from across the globe would help spread communism/socialism. But that hasn’t been the case at all. It seems as if globalism has made the world even MORE capitalistic.

Usually people immigrate because they’re desperate. And it’s easy for a capitalist to take advantage of a desperate person, because desperate people will work and accept terrible wages.

Take Hispanics for instance. They come to the US and do work for shit pay, and they don’t even seem to care much, especially considering the union membership rate for Hispanics is a whopping 9%.

So what gives? Are communists and socialists sure they have it right on immigration and open border theory? Because I feel like capitalists are laughing all the way to the bank as we embrace a melting pot society of diversity.

Also…immigration suppresses wages. This has been proven time and time again. So, aside from “empathy”, why are communists and socialists pro immigration?

I have seen communists defend obvious authoritarian communist leaders and countries where opposition is stifled, free speech is curtailed and people being sent to torture camps. Why do communists feel the need to defend authoritarianism when they can just debate the theory?

Would communism allow for minorities to be given voice? Or is the majority the only important voice? Does communism believe in minorities? If you're a minority would you be oppressed? Would religious movements be allowed? Would they be able to claim that their god is greater than the state?

(Sorry if this is not the appropriate place to ask this)

I’m not close to communist, but I thought something that could unite (most) of the left and right would be fixing the stock market system.

If you nationalized these businesses and turned them into state enterprises, and distributed the shares to the citizens, you would then have:

1. Expanded citizen ownership
2. A market economy focused on (partial) market planning instead of growth and buyouts
3. Greater citizen participation in the economy

When i share this idea on other forums (usually liberals) say I’m fascist and others call it communism. Obviously it’s not the latter, and I’d argue it isn’t the former since fascists keep large industries privatized.

But no matter what you call it, is this something that could be realistically achieved? And if it could, is it desirable? Or is my thinking flawed? What would you do with the stock market if you had your way?

I am based in Spain, and I find it hard not to notice the positions of certain parties, such as Frente Obrero and others. It seems to me that, while they do not appear explicitly transphobic, they do challenge the notion that transitioning is the appropriate course of action. From what I can gather, the other letters of the LGBTQ+ acronym are, in general, either respected or at least tolerated. Personally, I would never question anyone’s sexuality or sexual orientation.

I have no desire to spread hate, but I do feel compelled to share my thoughts:
Sex is an entirely biological reality — this is a scientifically established fact that we must accept. Viewing the matter from a Marxist perspective, and having done some reading, I believe we can agree that the real issue lies in the concept of gender itself. Gender, after all, is a social construct, and it is the set of ideas associated with being male or female — the roles, behaviours, and outward appearances — that ought to be challenged and dismantled.

One might reasonably argue that biological sex will always remain, as we are born either male or female. However, the norms and expectations surrounding gender can and should be weakened, if not entirely abolished.

Am I wrong in thinking that, for many who transition, the desire is often to conform to and reinforce these very stereotypes and roles? Of course, they are entirely within their rights to do so, and I fully support their freedom to make such choices. Yet, wouldn’t it be far simpler, and perhaps even more liberating, to act however one wishes without the need to align oneself with a particular gender category?

Again, I mean no offence or harm; I merely wish to open a discussion and hear the thoughts of my fellow comrades on this matter.

What’s y’all’s honest opinion on the DPRK? I’ve been trying to view the DPRK in a more neutral light recently The one thing I can’t get past is the Kim family dynasty. To me it just seems like they’re a monarchy.

This is a bit of a question and challenge at the same time. Capitalism in decay is a key tenement of what communists use to define fascism. This seems to be a very broad definition that can be stretched to fit a lot of things. Assuming communists don't view all types of capitalism as fascism, what is the difference between the two? Is it the ultra-nationalism aspect?

No matter how bad they get fucked by capitalism my family keeps defending it. Especially my dad. The more I read about history and Marxist literature the more angry I become. I hate the fact that everything in my life exist for profit. My country destroyed public spaces, public transportation and overinvest into our military industrial complex. I'm mad and depressed at the same time.

This is a broad question, but I'm curious what communists think about socialism that exists outside of Marxism. Be it Market Socialism, Ricardian Socialism, Democratic Socialism, or what have you. Do you think they are 'not real socialism' or just undesirable?

For the topic of 'not real socialism,' what is your criteria for what is 'real socialism' and 'not real socialism'? While I personally don't consider myself a socialist, I think its unfair to call things that actually socialize the means of production not real socialism, but I'm curious what a communist perspective on this is. Thank you.

Edit: Does a socialist system not calling for a stateless classless society = not good enough socialism? Or worse?

If I were a Communist, this is why I'd think Yugoslavia did socialism better than other socialist nations:

1. The workers had actual self-management over their enterprises, and crucially, the ability to set their wages. This was not the case in China and the USSR.
2. Yugoslavia had a Gini score (wealth inequality) between 0.32 and 0.35. The USSR had 0.275, and they had a much longer run than Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia also had a better Gini score than China.

Tito wasn't a free market socialist:

1. The state had ownership over the companies, not private citizens with their own co-ops.
2. While the companies competed in the market, these companies were not subject to most market mechanisms, like growth, businesses buying other businesses, etc. Yugoslavia companies were subject to central planning/5-year plans.

Things Tito did that weren't socialist:

1. Allowed for private (non co-op) businesses to exist if they had under 4-5 employees. Lenin did this too in the USSR but on a higher scale (I believe fewer than 20 employees)

Note that I'm not a socialist (let alone a communist) so I do have that bias

Nearly everywhere that has tried communism has been slow to recognize or outright be hostile to queer folks.

Why should I trust class solidarity when communists are also likely to throw me under the bus when it becomes convenient?

Life in China as a queer person right now sucks. Life in the former Soviet bloc as a queer person right now sucks. Cuba might be a decent place to live but they didn’t recognize queer marriage until 2018.

What, exactly, is in it for me to adopt leftism when leftists have just been as queer phobic, and in many cases just as outright antagonistic, as fascist reactionaries?

How can I trust the left when liberalism has been where most of the gains in queer rights and queer quality of life have been?

I know my bread ain’t buttered on the fascist side but I’m not convinced leftists have my best interest at heart. The former Soviet bloc is not the place to go for gender affirming care. That tends to be liberal democracies.