I know its a loaded question with so so so much information. Its for a friend and i want to best explain it but its so loaded and complicated so i wanted to hear other peoples explications on it to so they can have different perspectives and takes on it.

What I mean by this is a system where things are priced directly by the amount of energy needed to produce them (no profit).

For example non essential things like lets say already produced luxury car experiences being priced at x amount of “carbon/energy credits”. Workers being payed in said “carbon/energy credits” (given all essentials) depending on the amount of energy produced or carbon emissions saved to spend.

I believe this to be the ultimate way of exchange, in a universal manner. I even believe aliens would opt for a system like this, which points towards energetic efficency.

I know this is pretty random, but I gotta explain myself first, I (a brazillian marxist, so pardon my typos) recently got into a discussion online about Mises and his theory that I put on the question, and couldn't get out of the argument without the feeling of misunderstanding, I just didn't know what to answer to the person I was debating with, and it threw me off, so I wanted to see if I would get a better answer in this sub. What is the problem of Mises' theory and how to explain it is wrong/it's flaws to someone?

Thanks in advance, and again, sorry for my typos.

Hi! I'm confused about something. What exactly does it mean to measure a good as the socially necessary labour time? For example, Marx (as far as i've understood) thinks price in the market commonly doesn't reflect that value. But that in a state of perfect equilibrium between supply and demand prices would more or less reflect the actual value. What does it mean? For example, what would it mean for a sofa to reflect 10 hours of labour? Does Marx mean the cost of production? Thanks in advance for the response, have a good day.

Obviously all of the billionaires fit the bill and so does Congress.

But I am middle class and live at home, I work security and don't own stocks in Big Oil or other stuff. I have a bunch of musical instruments and I am saving for a pedal harp which costs a little less than your average Joe's car in 2018. I also want to go to Ireland when I'm 30.

Similarly, I know a microbiologist who is socialist in principle and bought my dad's vintage car. He says that he wants a revolution, but he also wants to have his six cars and motorcycles in his garage.

This one guy in my scuba diving club goes ice diving, cave diving, flies overseas once a year to the tropics (different locations), and has all of his own gear. He also posts #FreeLuigi type stuff every day and has Hitler unaliving himself as his pfp.

The thing is, I think it would be possible to have nice things under leftism. The question is, will the state/community allow that?

They are highly religious and have strict gender roles, but their food and resources are equaly shared amongst their community.

I've seen many people claim that right wing socialism doesn't exist even though the Amish exist.

Imagine a given parliament like the Bundestag. An imperative mandate would be like if a legislator were obligated to vote in a way the next level down below them in the organizational system resolves that the delegate should vote a certain way on a motion, though it is not always the case that an order is given and they are otherwise free to vote for a different outcome if this order is not given. A free mandate means that a legislator cannot be bound to do this.

Roberts Rules of Order does say that convention delegates can be bound this way. Many constitutions forbid imperative mandates. Some places like November Revolutionary Germany in 1918 and 1919 did have ideas RE imperative mandates.

I believe Engles put it best when he said, “A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists.” I’ve heard people on the left (of which I am a part) clamor for revolution, but have never actually experienced it. It’s bloody, violent, cruel, and often leads to oppression worse than what preceded it. And for every revolution, there are counter-revolutions. In a socialist world, there would likely be pockets of devout capitalist resistance who saw themselves as battling an oppressive system much the same way socialists see themselves under capitalism now. So how can this paradox be reconciled? How can socialism be brought by revolution? It seems to me (and I’m open to suggestions) that the only way for it to succeed without causing extreme damage in the process would be for a clear majority of the population to choose it democratically. Interested in hearing differing opinions!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Axis_talks?wprov=sfla1

"German–Soviet Axis talks occurred in October and November 1940, nominally concerning the Soviet Union's potential adherent as a fourth Axis power during World War II among other potential agreements. The negotiations, which occurred during the era of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, included a two-day conference in Berlin between Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov, Adolf Hitler and German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop. While Ribbentrop and most of the German Foreign office wanted an alliance with the Soviet Union, Hitler (supported by most of the other leadership) had been planning to invade the Soviet Union."

What is the socialist perspective on this? Is this something similar to what liberals say the Molotov Ribbentrop pact or were these real considerations from the USSR?

To elaborate,

I am located in America, so my experience is very much USA-centric. The USA is deep in the climate conversation, spurred on by our recent conservative sweep in the elections. As I "do my own research", so to speak, I grow confident in the fact that the climate is changing due to human activity. However, I'm put off by the dogmatic language used by U.S liberals surrounding the research I'm doing.

How can I tell when science is being performed in good faith vs simply reinforcing hegemonic, profit-protecting ideas about climate, nutrition, etc.?

This is inspired by a post in a big sub, where the comments gave me brain damage. Some heaters include

• the left is the no fun party
• the left spits on cis straight white men
• the left blames everything bad on cis heterosexual white men

Basically a billion variations of the above. I’m not sure if the premise itself is faulty but if it’s not, my theory is that the traditional things that men are conditioned to believe are markers of being a valuable member of society such as home ownership and raising a family are becoming increasingly unattainable due to massive stagnation in wage growth and the service-ification of everything. Economic insecurity imo can easily push some to adopt shitty politics especially without a good social safety net.

Plus, a severe degradation in quality of education that is widely available combined with social media brain rot has killed the cultivation of genuinely good critical thinking skills. Obviously, when the spate of online RW influencers heap the blame on wokeness/women or whatever the fuck, people basically have zero antibodies against that kind of bullshit.

Just my thoughts, but I’m interested to read something more than just “the blue haired libtard at college made me right wing”

I'm confused about the differences between the aforementioned four types of unions. What role do they each play? How do they interact with each other? How are they structured? Are there other ways unions can be organized that I'm missing? Anything would be helpful, although I would also really appreciate definitions of what each is theoretically, and then some non-theoretical historical applications and examples. These could be from the USA, USSR, China, Europe, and really anywhere else. That being said, anything within the USA, in particular, would be nice, as that's where I reside.

I understand that different groups of people are commonly used as scapegoats here in order to keep the working class split, hating each other and blaming each other for the problems caused by the capitalist class.

Are illegal immigrants also part of this phenomenon? Because if they are, why does the capitalist class allow it at all? Is the division caused by scapegoating immigrants worth more to them than the more egregious exploitation they can do on “illegal” immigrants. Aren’t they the people that benefit from illegal immigrants the most? They can treat them worse, pay them worse, knowing that there will be no repercussions and knowing that these people can’t even unionize.

Or Is the anti immigrant sentiment a natural reaction from society at large? If so, why?

I see a similar anti immigrant sentiment in Europe as well.

It’s something that I’ve been thinking about and I can’t really wrap my head around it.

What exactly does the trump administration stand to gain by repealing women’s rights, DEI, pausing SNAP and EBT and pausing all government grants? If his goal is a true plutocracy, how does this help him? I’m scared and want to know why this administration wants to do so much damage.

What is your take on the future movement? If you're Vietnamese I would love to hear your opinion on that. I am aware that corruption is rampant and there are private monopolies/conglomerates but is there any movement amongst the working folk?

I’m kind of confused about china. They aren’t communists, they strive for it, but it sure doesn’t look like it. They center left and very authoritarian, so what ideology do they fall, plus what are your thoughts on their policies.

Books on Resistance movements, revolutions, trade unions (works on the history of socialist trade unionism around the world from the ITGWU in Ireland to the WWF here in Aus would be amazing), guerrilla war, rebellions etc

I have been talking to one of my professors at college who is a socialist and he's allowed me to figure out more of my views on the economy and social issues. He recommended me The Reactionary Mind and wants my opinions on it when I am done. This is the first that I am hearing of this book and was wondering if anyone else has read it and if it is worth the money to buy?

Many liberals I talk to claim that workers in China have no rights, but I think that may not be true. Is there anything I can read about this that gives a more accurate perspective than western news outlets?

I noticed that many socialists are against the police (ex. in the r/socialism community, they don't tolerate police apologia), and I wondered why. Are socialists against the concept of the police, or just the police as they are now?

Hey! first time poster here, so I apologize if this has been previously talked about. I'm a university student taking an ECON101 course and found this passage (see the last line on North Korea). The previous passage mentions market price and offers little criticism of that resource allocation system, which has left me feeling a bit uncertain. I'm not sure what to believe regarding North Korea's command system (or if it can even be called that?). Is this information current, outdated, or just straight-up CIA propaganda? I understand there's a bias against North Korea in the media so if someone could recommend further (and more accurate) readings on the topic I'd appreciate that.

I can't seem to add an image so I'll copy and paste straight from the textbook:

"A command system works well in organizations in which the lines of authority and responsibility are clear and it is easy to monitor the activities being performed. But a command system works badly when the range of activities to be monitored is large and when it is easy for people to fool those in authority. North Korea uses a command system and it works so badly that it even fails to deliver an adequate supply of food."

Online, it seems like some people say the vast majority of Cubans support the party and the revolution while another group say the vast majority want it overthrown and all gone. What's the actual truth and is there any good data from independent polling organizations on what % of Cubans support the Communist Party?

The closest data I can find is the US government memo that said "The majority of Cubans support Castro (the lowest estimate I have seen is 50 percent).", claiming Cuba must be brutally punished to try to turn the population against the government. However, this memo is now over 6 decades old and a lot can change in over sixty years. Any more recent data?

In a socialist society I believe there will be more time for hobbies and creativity. It seems the cited examples are often painting or producing some other kind of art. What about expensive hobbies like golf, scuba diving, hand gliding, collecting vintage cars. Is there a place for this activity?

I want to be proactive in supporting the movement and helping out people. How do your local meetings usually go? I myself am not as well versed or smooth talking to lead a big group of people. Besides exchanges of media and books, exchanges of thoughts what can be done?

Hi y'all! I'm a teenager, and i'm really pissed at the state of the world right now. From what I know about socialism and Marxism, they sound like very practical and useful ways of thinking. I want to educate myself more on these topics, any resources (YouTube videos, podcasts, books, etc..) that y'all recommend? Thanks in advance!!