A lot of nations are worried about young people not having children, but some people believe it's a good thing. What do socialists think? If socialists think it's a problem to be solved, how would socialism address the issue, or would it make a difference?

So obviously we know how Amazon kinda killed out smaller businesses, but to appease shareholders, Amazon must grow constantly as an almost singular goal

This will happen on two fronts: expanding the business, and reducing the costs

On the expanding the business part, that means they’ll have to find ways to put MORE companies out of business and have more people buying from Amazon. This might mean expanding into new markets also, which we kinda saw with something like AWS

Eventually, they have resources so vast that they can preemptively snuff out competition. This already happened with places like diapers.com, where they simply undercut the business and lost some money to gain market share

However the extra bad part is that Amazon will want to reduce costs. One of the biggest costs they have is labor. They’ll try to reduce headcount and automate every possible thing they can. In their perfect world, every quarter, the revenue will go up while salaries/head count goes down

Skilled labor is also seen as something of a threat because it gives workers better negotiating power. They want to find a way to ensure they don’t need skilled labor, and since that’s no longer a path to a good salary, these skills are no longer taught widely

So eventually, pretty much everyone is out of work or on an extremely low salary, and no one can really afford Amazon anymore, so their profit declines, meaning their value goes down. They have to downscale, but since everyone else is out of business too, they don’t really have anyone to sell to

I think also housing and food will eventually become more monopolized, meaning that the costs will effectively just be whatever they can squeeze out of people to force growth. Chances are, most people are only going to be able to afford housing and food and no luxuries at all

Since most of the actual “value” is in stock and the stock is declining, even the rich people aren’t totally safe

In Europe some countries talk a lot about doing a 32h/week which is reasonable because profit grew a lot together with productivity but salary and the 40h week remained the same.

How a socialist country could compete with the industrial advancement of USA, China, Russia, Brazil, India without exploiting their own workers?

I understand the profit would then go toward building a country rather than a capitalist and that's an improvement. But how can it really compete with the external world? Also how can it sustain economically itself without exporting through a market regulated systems like China did?

While I agree on making people work less, I still don't understand how that would Realistically possible

Reading through Lenin’s The State and Revolution, and as he talks about the withering away of the state, I want to make sure I’m correctly understanding him.

Essentially it could be summed up as: Capitalism (Bourgeois Republic)->Socialism (Proletarian Republic)-> Communism (Proletarian/Classless Direct Democracy)

Am I understanding this correctly? With the withering away of the state being the active effort to remove the elements of the ruling class in society and build a world in which state facilitation of production is no longer necessary?

Thanks in advance comrades!

In my book club we are currently reading Marx's "Wages, prices and profit", and I'm struggling to understand anything he's saying there, not even our teacher.

My reasoning is that I should first read some basic/universal economy books, text-books to have a better ground.

I was wondering if that was a good idea and if you could recommend me some good economy books for starters, or how did you learn economics?

Like rich people need to buy things too. But what if gets to where corporate corner cutting and price gouging gets so common to where even the rich executives and investors get screwed over by other corporations using the same practices and luxury services and products start becoming unreliable so things like super cars, yachts, and mansions become poorly made, overpriced, and fall apart. Rich people will Basically be screwing each other over

I slowly make my way thought larger theory books, and I've enjoyed breaking it up with this Marxist reader that I found at my local used bookstore.

Does anybody have any Reader or collections they'd recommend? For example, I have a gramsci reader on my shelf I'm going to get to. I'm mostly interested in Marxist theory, but I'm open to other tendencies as well.

I was reading the "The coddling of the american mind" where they made the argument that universities have basically been hijacked and have been used as a means of political activism instead of a place of learning.

I know that marx is very influenced by hegel and that in dialectical materialism knowledge is socially contingent and that the tension between opposing ideas is resolved through a power struggle predominantly in a class framework. I have read some marx and I love him but I have also read him through other people and I see conflicting accounts.

I have two questions;

• Would it be fair to say that for Marx a real objective truth is unknowable and that there is no approximation to it, rather history of ideas is basically just a power struggle and a means of control (deleuze, foucaul etc)?
• If so, then education should be a place of activism right?
• I know gramsci and many marxist have conciously gone to academia and we see these in the student protests in 1960s. So is there any wheight to the claim that academia has been hijacked by marxism. If so, would marx justify it under dialectical materialism? If all knowledge is an invention how can he at the same time claim a truth?

This is all confusing can you help me understand?

One last question that I think is the most important one.

• Since marx believed in progress through tension where a thesis and the antithesis struggle and arrive at a synthesis, would it be out of pocket to claim that the 20th century was exactly that? You had on one hand predatory capitalism where there was almost no regulation, no labour unions workers rights etc and also the world vide socialist movement with various revolutions etc. For him history is inevitable. There was the cold war and both direct conflict between the two superpowers and conflict in each nation as to whether a socialist state should be implemented. The synthesis was keynsian mixed economies with very strong worker rights and a strong welfare state accross most rich nations. So according to marxism the revolution did fail as it met with its antithesis and a better synthesis arrived advancing history understood as class struggle. If you agree with this characterisation then I guess you could claim if marx caim back from the dead he would be very pleased with the results of his movement and that it went exactly how it would always go due to material determinism.

Edit: If education is a battlefront, is that not problematic. If activism is a way of uncovering truth then truth is presupposed in the uncovering of truth which is self defeating. I understand while Marx thought knowledge was materially and historically conditioned, it is not fair to say he believed everything was a social construct, however most of his successors do. Do socialists and marxist claim the postmodern philosophers? Do they claim intersectionalism and minority coalition and all of that?Would that not take away from class conciousness which, according to marx, is the real battle and everything else is a distraction.

So. The Term Leftist is, as I've learned, is a Term coined by and for capital and to call oneself a Leftists is basically saying your left wing, but the left wing tied to Capital. And not truly a Socialist, Commie, Whatever. (Because Socialism and other Theory is antithetical to this view/fundamentally detached from it.) As Described to me.

And I can certainly understand that. Especially when "Leftist" aka Liberals that have gone really Left wing but are still fundamentally tied to Capital and the Elite just spout Radical Language but arent actually for any of the fundamentals of Socialism

But then theres plenty of comrades, and those that are Extremely well read in theory, also call themselves leftist?

I'd assume this is because of the term becoming now known as the Anthesis of anything Right of Socialism, and is becoming or is no longer conflated to the above.

And IMO I think its a pretty good one too because it allows for Comrades to just put that label on themselves instead of going into hyper detail of which section they are (IE Marxist-Leninist-Maoist that Believes in trot, but also thinks trot is a dickhead but then also has these other parts of Theory tied into it as well. Sorta thing)

And if all of this is wrong. Then, if someone were to want to label themselves broadly, and not just be tied down to just "Socialist" or so on. What would that term be?

People say lot of first world countries like the US, UK, Germany, France and even Russia are moving very fast to right wing extreme views. Where fascism and ultra conservatism is growing in those countries.

And they go on and say Germany and France have Trump like person that could get voted in coming years. Not sure what Spain or Italy is like.

The shift and growing of ultra conservatives movement in first world countries became of late stage capitalism?

Hey everyone!

I spent a few days in Shanghai recently and was honestly surprised by how “Western” and capitalist it seemed. Of course, I know Shanghai is an extreme outlier compared to the rest of China, given its unique history and all, but still, it caught me off guard. People were decked out in the latest fashion, sporting the newest and most expensive gadgets and phones.

On a broader scale, I spoke with locals and was struck by how expensive things were—good education, rent (even state-owned buildings are being sublet at outrageous prices), and just the general cost of living. It really made me wonder: where are the socialist ideals of China?

I did really admire the affordable bullet trains and excellent public transportation (even taxis seem subsidized?), but beyond that, it left me with questions. Is that the extent of it? Maybe of course state-owned businesses? No home/houseless people on the streets? And what about healthcare, unemployment benefits?

I love the idea of socialism, but to be honest, what I saw seemed overwhelmingly capitalist, with flashy wealth and extreme disparities. For instance, apparently, people can even buy very expensive number plates in China, especially those with the lucky number 8.

Would love to hear thoughts or insights from anyone who’s experienced a different side of China or has a deeper understanding of the economic and social dynamics there!

Specifically, those to silence obviously wrong beliefs and ideologies(e.g. racism, facism). What material reasons(or just in general) could they uphold it?

They sometimes use the argument of a slippery slope. This is a fallacy.

They also mainly use the argument of compromise, which is also a fallacy. Why not silence the opposition that is clearly in the wrong?

I know those figures are kind of all over the place in terms of ideological strands but I'm not certain where I really stand in such a way. If you can also potentially just recommend books on Yugoslavia, Burkina Faso, the DPRK, Cuba, (and so on) from left-wing perspectives, it'd be appreciated.

(Also chances are if you recommend anything by Kim Il-Sung I already have it in some form, but wanna see if there are any I've missed lol)

I've got a friend who seems very interested in socialism though they're neither fond of nor are they used to reading larger books (or books with more "complex" wording). What can I do to help them learn socialism (relatively) in-depth whilst still keeping it short? Are there any good smaller texts that talk of socialism whilst not removing important parts that you recommend? What is there to do?

I'd like to see them actually enjoy learning about this ideology and, as it stands, it can't be through larger works. Any answers are appreciated.

How would people getting degrees help or hinder the movement towards socialism? On one hand, I see the fallacious idea of meritocracy as something that could hold us back (because of this myth serving the interests of the bourgeoisie), and on the other, I see potential in people ‘earning’ more money to survive more comfortably/at all (especially in areas with high cost of living). How can this be reconciled, if possible?

Or examples that refute the ILW?

Kinda weird question I know, but fictional media is a huge part of our lives. As much as we love to rag on liberals for only being able to view serious political conflicts through the lens of pop culture (EX: that thing they do where they compare everything to Harry Potter), fictional media is a big pillar of the hegemony that makes capitalism seem like the only viable option for so many people. I learned about capitalist realism, how a system that's only a couple centuries old has gaslit millions of people into thinking it's the natural order of the world. There is so little intentionally socialist media in the world, but I think it would be good if there was more. If we get people used to socialist ideas in fiction, that kind of helps us to get our metaphorical foot in the door for getting people to accept socialist theory in reality. There is so little intentionally socialist media, and Lord knows media giant corporations would never greenlight anything that is, or just kneecap it so it's messages fall flat. Case in point, the 2012 Lorax movie. Not even socialist, but every message it had that was too critical of hyperconsumerism or corporate greed got softened until it was barely there. And that insane amount of product tie-ins that just defeated the whole purpose of the film.

But just because it's not getting multimillion dollar budgets doesn't mean socialist fiction doesn't exist. (Ursula K. Leguin, Disco Elysium, etc.) Do you think it would be worth making more as a tool for education of the working class? I'm an amateur writer and aspiring filmmaker myself and I think it's something I can do good for the movement. Especially because people are losing faith in liberal institutions lately. I'm an American who watched the Harris campaign crash and burn, and I think it's a good time to start radicalizing people.

Hello comrades around the globe, I have a question to ask in regards to vanguardism. From my basic understanding of what vanguardism is, it is a division of the socialist or communist party which aims to engage with the proletariat of the state to strengthen and improve their political power and knowledge of their rights as workers -- all while discreetly spreading socialist ideas and revolutionary theory among the working-class (Please correct me if I am incorrect).

Now my question is, how can this practice be applied in the modern era where technology has advanced? We are more connected to the world than the past generation could even imagine. But will this work to our advantage or will it be a double-edged sword for us socialists? Your answers will be greatly appreciated, comrades.

I’ve noticed on a lot of black community subreddits, people have been very distraught over the electron results. Specifically with how much black people in the United States voted for Democrat more than other races. How everything is bad, and doom and stuff. To be fair, reddit right now is a lot like this (but without the emphasis on race, which makes sense since these spaces are focused around being black)

From this discourse, I’ve seen a decent amount (NOT all) posts and comments about categorizing black people as a group different from BIPOC, since everyone else is apparently “white adjacent” in that group (mainly latinos and asian people). Some have claimed that Palestians are all racist and don’t deserve to get support or help from black people, hence they aren’t actually against what’s happening in Gaza. These same people claiming that black people keep fighting for other racial groups’ rights, but are always abandoned by the racial group they helped out. A very ‘Us vs Them’ mentality where Americans who actually voted blue are completely ignored. Also it seems to ignore black people who are racist towards other races.

Something about all of this seems like it would a classic example of dividing the working class people, making them attack other working class and oppressed people. This distracting from the government (and how much Democrats have been sliding right-leaning in ideology and politics… Well more than usual) and economy currently. This also seems to convinetly erase any problems with the Democratic party (specifically with Kamala Harris) and blame it on individuals who are sometimes very oppressed in society.

But I do wonder if this goes deeper than that. I don’t actually know if black people are the most marginalized (racial) group in the United States. I don’t even know if that can even be answered?

I have a vague idea of how powerful capitalist nations intentionally sabotage socialist governments, CIA coups and whatnot, and artificially force them into poverty, like through tariffs and trade embargoes, but can I get more specific details? This is for visual novel writing purposes, as I'm trying to worldbuild a fictional socialist country in the Caribbean.

Not American here but usually for LatinAM countrries, a counter is that they wouldn't ened to migrate if the US didnt destablize the country (chile, argentina, etc) But what about Mexico? I think there was a US intervention but in the end was a bourgeois revolution b and then they somehow end up poor (please correct me if Im wrong :)!) , so people can say that we americans didn't do anythign 'bad' to them like making them to war torn country and they should just stay in their poor country.

Whenever i see this mentioned (e.g: "i cant believe X is pro-nato", or "socialists should be anti nato!") It always seems to me like such an odd way to centre the conversation and I rarely see this explained any further.

Isn't nato just a symptom of imperialism? Why would you be pro/anti something that just exists as a by product of the real issue?

Ir does saying you are pro/anti nato mean something completely different? Why the focus on this?

When you look at exit polls and demographics of certain places, it seems like many irreligious people tend to favor left-wing policies, while many religious people tend to favor right-wing policies. I know everybody is different, but are irreligious folks (in particular atheists and agnostics) usually the most supportive of socialism?