Imagine if your government had a cap on how much money one could make in a year, where all your basic needs were met, where all you needed to do was work to earn money for all the extras you wanted in your life? In this article (less than a 10 minute read) Dr. Stephen Abdiel discusses the approach of merging the two, and creating a better society.

https://thehangout.space/discussions-1/socialism-vs-capitalism

Does anybody find it bad faith when you explain what the marxian LTV is and then straight away after, what you said is completly ignored and you have to repeat AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN ....... etc

eg..... the labour in the theory i always explain that it's about labour in a market of commodities .... ie the vast majority of the economy

that it's about averages ... working times, prices in a market .. etc .... like science of thermodynamics .

that an employer will only hire a worker if the worker makes more for the employer than is being paid ( after all expenses)

that marx added to the LTV and the only reason it was dropped by supporters of capitalism was because of what it revealed ..it's comical how subjective theory was all they could come up with to defend themselves

then they go on to describe senarios that don't fit the description AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN .....

you know the stuff .. mud pies .. diamonds and water .. .the usual stuff that has been dealt with, i don't know , millions of times before?

i guess its painful to accept the truth of capitalism .. be you employer or employee ?

As stated in the title, it's hard for a centralized socialist state to set prices correctly and incentivize people to work - it might be worth thinking about having some form of anarchocapitalism that incorporates democratically-run corporations in order to maximize the benefits of capitalist meritocracy to the masses whilst minimizing bureacracy. With an increasing world population there will have to be maximal freedom afforded to individuals to ensure there isn't mass unrest regarding appropriation of rights whilst ensuring that global wealth continues to increase. Maybe someone could poke a huge hole in this idea that I've been weighing for some time?

Of course, even when in power the Left's biggest flaw is divide. But I think this is near impossible to try and solve.

You got the Centre-Leftists, the Social Democrats, the Democratic Socalists and the "Full on" socialists.

I'm starting to think that it's time that the Centre left find a new home on the political spectrum or just stick to the centre more purist Liberal point of view. Left Wing parties being dragged to the centre in our current political landscape is only really effective at gaining votes, but not at achieving the policy aims that any left wing party would

The right tries to paint moderates or Centre leftists as the only sensible part of the Left, but as can be seen with the current centrist Labour Party, this gets little done.

It becomes just a slight improved version of Neoliberalism, which should have been declared extinct years ago.

The left needs to ACTUALLY be the Left again, and stand its ground rather than be dragged to the centre, where many principles and goals go the waste. At worst, this means Social democracy and best this means socialism

What can we do guys

If corporations isn’t forced to pay people by benevolent government they won’t and they will force people to work for them sure they might throw them some food and water to keep them alive but it’s only to make profit and this ain’t right guys 😢

Unfortunately we know the capitalists are ok with his … 🤦🏿‍♂️

And also lets people be exploited and ripped off but with socialism it means everyone is equal and has houses and healthcare and also since republicans gutted education funding to zero people are too uneducated to realize this so they keep voting republican which makes more free market 😢

In capitalism a company may invent and design an item or a process and maintain a patent or copyright on their idea. This forces other companies to reinvent the wheel. Notice all the different programs for charging an EV. You cannot just drive until you stop at a destination and find a charging station nearby to charge while having lunch or attending a meeting. You need a membership with the company that owns the charger or you pay a higher price, and each company has a different business model in order to maintain necessary uniqueness for legal reasons. One sells monthly programs with automatic costs applied to your credit card for 20 kWhs per month, or 100, or 150, or etc. You sign up and you're charged monthly. Another issued a card that acts something like a credit card and costs are applied to your account as you use their system. Another has another scheme. Similar with all the different functions of different phones. Similar with many other items that are popular and familiar. But in socialism the cooperation and absence of personal rights to private profits would mean standardization. We could have one system for charging EVs, one set of functions for cellphones with different styles of phone available, one PUD system for electric power and other utilities, and on and on and on. Life would be simpler and less frustrating!

How does the worker acquire the capital for the means of production? If he doesn’t, then how do they receive full value of their work?

I tried to read up on this but it seems like a huge contradiction.

Communists don’t want private property nor profit, yet they want workers to gain control of the means of production and gain full value of their work. Doesn’t that just make the worker a capitalist???

The Distortion of Scientific Socialism by Soviet Failure: An Analysis

The failure of Soviet socialism profoundly distorted global understanding of scientific socialism, fostering widespread fear and misunderstanding about socialism and communism. To dispel these misconceptions, it is essential to analyze the lessons from Soviet-style socialism. Marx’s scientific socialism is a groundbreaking social science theory or hypothesis that requires a scientific approach to its examination. However, the Soviet experiment took place in a time and place that were wholly unsuitable for the successful implementation of socialist ideals. At the time of the Russian Revolution, the country was deeply entrenched in a backward feudal system, with an industrial base that was far less developed than that of the advanced capitalist nations of the West. Consequently, what emerged was a premature and malformed state, cloaked in the guise of Marxism, but in reality, more akin to a theocratic state resembling the structure of the Orthodox Church.

I. The Wrong Time and Place for Soviet Socialism

Marx envisioned socialism as a stage that would emerge from a highly developed capitalist society, where the productive forces have reached an advanced stage, and goods are abundantly available. Such a society would possess a mature and efficient system of social organization and management. However, the Russian Empire in the early 20th century was anything but a highly developed capitalist society. It was predominantly agrarian, with vast swathes of the population still living as peasants under a feudal system. The industrialization that had transformed Western Europe and the United States had barely begun in Russia. Social organization was weak, and the state was riddled with inefficiency and corruption.

In this context, the Russian Revolution and the subsequent establishment of Soviet socialism were ill-timed and ill-suited to the Marxist blueprint. The premature birth of socialism in Russia led to the creation of a state that was Marxist in name only. Instead of building on the advanced productive forces of capitalism, Soviet socialism attempted to bypass this stage entirely, leading to a society that was neither truly socialist nor capitalist, but something entirely different—an authoritarian regime that borrowed heavily from the hierarchical and centralized structures of the Russian Orthodox Church.

II. The Dogmatization of a Scientific Theory

One of the fundamental errors of Soviet socialism was the dogmatization of what was originally a scientific theory. Marxism, as conceived by Karl Marx, was intended as a scientific analysis of society, economics, and history. It was a theory grounded in the material conditions of the time, subject to change and adaptation as those conditions evolved. However, in the Soviet Union, Marxism was transformed into a rigid doctrine, where the ruling party's interpretation of Marxism was elevated above all else, including social sciences and even natural sciences.

This dogmatization led to the creation of a political system where the Communist Party became an extremist organization, wielding unchecked power, and stifling any form of dissent or critical thought. The suppression of intellectual freedom, coupled with widespread corruption and inefficiency within the party and government, drained Soviet society of its vitality and creativity. The Marxist principle of dialectical materialism, which emphasized the importance of change and contradiction in the development of society, was abandoned in favor of a static, unchallengeable orthodoxy.

III. The Consequences of Misguided Socialist Practices

The Soviet model of socialism, despite its initial success in industrializing the country and improving certain social indicators, ultimately led to an inefficient and stagnating economy, widespread corruption, and a repressive political environment. These outcomes were entirely contrary to the intentions of Marxist socialism, which aimed to create a more equitable and just society, where the means of production were collectively owned, and the wealth generated by society was shared among all its members.

The failure of Soviet socialism did not just have consequences for the Soviet Union; it also had a profound impact on the global socialist movement. The Soviet Union became the model for many other countries, particularly in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, that were seeking to break free from colonialism and imperialism. These countries, many of which were poor and underdeveloped, looked to the Soviet Union as an example to follow. However, in adopting the Soviet model, they also adopted its flaws, leading to the creation of authoritarian regimes that were socialist in name only and which often replicated the same inefficiencies, corruption, and repression seen in the Soviet Union.

IV. The Need for a Scientific and Contextual Approach to Socialism

To truly understand and apply Marxist socialism, it is crucial to approach it with the same scientific rigor that Marx himself advocated. This means recognizing that socialism cannot be imposed on a society that has not yet reached the appropriate stage of economic and social development. Marx was clear in his writings that socialism would emerge from the contradictions within capitalism—specifically, the tension between the socialized nature of production and the private ownership of the means of production.

In highly developed capitalist societies, where productive forces have reached an advanced stage, and where goods are abundantly available, the conditions are ripe for socialism to emerge as a solution to the contradictions of capitalism. In such a society, the profit-driven model of capitalism becomes increasingly unsustainable, as it leads to overproduction, economic crises, and growing inequality. At this point, socialism, with its emphasis on collective ownership and the equitable distribution of wealth, becomes a viable and necessary alternative.

V. Conclusion: Learning from the Soviet Experience

The failure of Soviet socialism should not be seen as a failure of socialism as a whole but rather as a failure to apply Marxist principles in a scientific and contextually appropriate manner. By analyzing the mistakes of the Soviet Union, we can better understand the conditions under which socialism can be successfully implemented and avoid repeating the same errors.

To dispel the fear and misunderstanding that surround socialism and communism, it is essential to separate the failures of the Soviet model from the broader theoretical framework of Marxist socialism. By doing so, we can approach socialism as Marx intended—as a scientific theory that must be critically examined, tested, and adapted to the specific material conditions of each society. Only through such a scientific approach can we hope to create a more just and equitable society in the future.

Marx never produced a guidebook or a formula for creating a collective, democratic society to follow capitalism. But he did create the most detailed, most rigorous critique of capitalism in its historical context. And anyone who would advocate socialism should seek awareness and understanding of Marx's writings not only to be able to advocate that which his work implies, but because his work has been the inspiration and guide where possible for every major communist revolution to date.

One factoid that we need to understand is that Marx almost never referred to "socialism". Instead, he referred to communism. Specifically, he referred to "lower stage communism" which has come to be called "socialism" by most of the world today, and to "higher stage communism" which we call "communist society".

The reason for his habit of referring to "communism" is that he envisioned the proletarian revolution having the purpose of ending class societies with all their exploitation and class sufferings. And classless society would be communist society by definition.

He didn't imagine class societies coming to a screeching halt immediately following any revolution. Rather, as in his "Critique of the Gotha Program", he saw the new proletarian society growing gradually out of the old capitalist society, but dependably so because it would be led by the working class and the destruction of capitalist rights to private ownership and private profits. The new society would initially be "just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges."

And this he called "lower stage communism" because it is beginning to move in the direction of the goal - classless, stateless communist society. At that point it would be "the dictatorship of the proletariat" because the leading contingent of the working class (proletariat) would be in control and would be suppressing the class urges and efforts of the capitalist class as they try to restore their dominance and stop the working class.

Gradually, over several generations, the impulses and class consciousness and class goals, preferences and intentions of the capitalist class would diminish and "wither away" as Marx put it, leading to classes "withering away" as classless society emerges. Classes and goals of personal superiority and personal dominance would vanish as people become habituated to cooperating, democratic procedures, and accustomed to managing any occasional conflicts and crimes themselves with their own people's organizations elected and appointed democratically.

So with the goal constantly being classless, stateless communist society in the distant future, Marx referred to the whole process as stages of communism so as to avoid any identification of any part of the process as being a single economic and political era in itself. The goal is the point.

CAPITALISM, SAVINGS and HARD WORK (1/3) - Miguel Anxo Bastos <-- (youtube)

The emergence of Javier Milei in the political and economic landscape has introduced a public discussion about liberal ideas (libertarian for our North American readers). This ideological revolution has shaken the foundations of a debate many considered monopolized by more totalitarian currents of the mainstream thought.

In this context, it seemed essential to me to rescue and share the roots of the ideas that have inspired Milei, focusing especially on the two most prominent Spanish figures of the current Austrian economic school, who surely are unknown to many readers: Jesús Huerta de Soto and Miguel Anxo Bastos. While the former stands as one of the contemporary maximum exponents of this school, offering a theoretical and academic vision of the economy, the latter has dedicated himself to disseminating this knowledge in a more accessible and understandable way for the general public. Both, each in their own way, have contributed to enriching the current economic debate with perspectives that challenge the status quo and promote deeper reflection on the workings of our societies and economies.

I want to introduce a speech by Miguel Anxo Bastos that exemplarily illustrates the essence of capitalism and the importance of saving, investment, and hard work as pillars for development and prosperity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z9ql7UY_1Q

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was socialist in the same way that the Democratic Republic of Korea is democratic.

If you want to tax the very richest people more, I agree with you, because it would not really affect anyone negatively but will create a lot more liquidity for the government to (hopefully) invest into infrastructure, education, healthcare, and other amenities. That's great.

What I am not fine with is the underlying principle that a majority of people (on any normal bell-shape distribution cure, there is a "smarter" half and less "smart" half) have any say if your house is too big, your car is too good, your wallet too full, your children are educated too well. Because it never stops at the richest 0.1%. It seems to me that most if not all proletarian movements are brought up essentially on the principle of "me want X, give me X cause there's many of me and one of you"

Also I can already see the cheap insults like bootlicker coming my way. If you say anything as stupid, you are admitting to yourself that you cannot leverage any argument against this question, or justify your notions of how the world "is ought to be" with no falsifiable empirical evidence backing it

Worker exploitation doesn’t come from the system, it comes from humans being assholes. You can have great bosses treating their workers like kings in a capitalist society, or you can have workers being treated like shit in a socialist society.

Socialism/capitalism are not the key to these things. It’s basically just laws and regulations, regardless of the economic system.

Isn’t that the best middle ground between capitalism and socialism. You all get distributed stock. When you leave a company you sell your shares back to the company. I know there has to be firms that operate like this I just personally don’t know a well known example. You give the workers ownership of production. You have a reliable way to regulate a market. Idk am I missing something here?

As a rational left winger from the UK, I cant stress how annoying it is to see radical Right wing/ One Nation Conservatives continually group wokie extremists in the same box as anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Just because I am left wing does not mean I support communism, just because I hate Candace Owens, does not mean I read Mao's Little Red book every night as a bedtime story, just because I think your views on immigration are a little harsh does not mean I want open boarders.

And most importantly, just because I am left wing does not mean I should be grouped with wokies. We despise them just as much!

Lets start with the recent surge in online content, of so called Right wing intellectuals roasting left wing college students, is this what we have come to? THIS is bar for where you base your opinions?

One of these intellectuals being Ben Shapiro, who called Andrew Neil, a long time conservative, a "Lefty". Now regardless of the event it took place, this perfectly encapsulates the Right Wing in America right now, and slowly in the rest of the world.

You guys are so hung up on trying to debunk other views of how society should be run that you never stop to think: "Huh...the world isnt just about me...maybe this is how politics...works?"

Political ideologies exist for a reason, so when supposed specalists like Jordan Peterson (Who I respect) talk about Socalism like its a sin that was chisled on the 10 commandements, I tend to roll my eyes.

I tend to roll my eyes even more audaciously when in debates about Socalism, you guys keep mentioning Karl Marx...at that point why am I wasting my time debating you? So if you see a trans protester spray painting a pride flag on your garage door, dont see her as "Left Wing", see her as an extremist. And btw, these Right Wing radicals are just as bad! Candace Owens saying "Fuck Ukraine and wearing a White Lives Matter shirt is not "commendable" or beneficial in any way to anything.

And thats my thesis: Wokies are not left wing, nor right wing. They are deluded extremists, so stop blaming us for them

Thank you

(TL;DR - Humanity historically recognized that there were essential needs facing humans "in the moment". And they organized themselves collectively to address the pressing need. Obviously the pressing need for primitive hunter-gatherer societies was the provision of food. Consequently the first attempt to organize society to provide for that need was a system that concentrated focus on the problem and the solution. The most advanced system to address that specific need later came to be called "feudalism".

When that was adequately addressed, focus began to shift to commodity production as the next need. A new kind of organizing principle that would answer that need was required. New relations of production to address the need later became known as "capitalism".

Now we know how to organize production, how to provide for innovation, and how to develop technology. And we must create new relations of production to take advantage of what we now know without the new system creating constant major problems that comes with late-stage capitalism. What shall we call that new system? )

Karl Marx never suggested what some people seem to believe, which is that we are free to pick and choose what kind of economic system we have. On the contrary, he laid out a logical progression of systems from slave society (think Rome) to the future communist society 1000 years in the future. Each system addressed the needs at the time, and each one properly addressed and provided for solutions to problems of the time. The only real trouble with that is that in no case did any leaders of any failing system realize that their system was holding back development of society and that a new system was needed. In fact, in every case the leaders chose to cling to the existing system and keep the ruling class in power. So for the most part, change is resisted. And we must remember always that a big part of that resistance takes the form of lies and propaganda to cling to the old system by “leadership” who personally benefits from it. At that point they cannot afford to tell the truth. In every case only the new, emerging and revolutionary forces depended on the truth to empower them.

Historically, the “value” of capitalism depends on the current stage of your society. In the early stage of capitalism and as societies transitioned from feudalism, food production technology had been developed during feudalism and so hungry people knew how a food need could be addressed. The leading and pressing need at that point, then, was the development of productive capacity for commodities. People wanted better and less expensive tools, housewares, clothes, and other things of daily use. So capitalism (which wasn’t referred to as “capitalism” then) was the new arrangement of relations of production that answered the need best. Think about it. It makes sense that if you’re adequately fed but you can’t just make all your own household items that you need, you would welcome a popular effort to organize production of those things in order to make them available. So that’s what they did and they found ways to organize it efficiently. BINGO! Capitalism was born and was only later named.

So yes, capitalism did good things. It was a powerhouse. And in addition to inspiring innovation, it also has created the means and ability for us to provide goods in abundance. For the first time in the history of the world, we live in an age of abundance, . . . . -except for the contrived “shortages” that capitalism, itself, creates in order to maximize profits (think gasoline). That is a problem. In fact, all of our national, most solution-resistant problems can be traced back to one cause - capitalism. And capitalism not only created those problems but it also prevents them from being solved.

So yes, capitalism was the right thing at the right time. But now, the problem with capitalism isn’t that it keeps growing like a tumor, but that the drive for more and more and more profit is creating a succession of insolvable problems, like climate change, excessive incarceration, Medicare and Social Security problems, etc. And the only real solution is the elimination of the profit motive because that is what is in our way. We now need a system that can just make use of the productivity, innovation, and technology capitalism has produced and make it all available to the population as a whole. What shall we call it? "Socialism" is what the world has chosen for a name.

Socialism: Socialism is the one economic system that was named before it was ever established. And unfortunately, the first countries that tried to establish it were those that were still mostly agrarian and still needed to develop their means of food and commodity production, contrary to what Marx had “prescribed”. And since they lacked a well-developed industrial worker population, they weren’t able to put their working class in charge as Marx had described. So they put government “experts” in charge, along with government “managers” and it all led to disaster including Stalin and the failure of most attempts to create socialism. Cuba remains the one exception that may remain on the socialist path. We shall see.

Basically what the title says. Also what can you objectively understand from each other each side? I understand why socialists believe what they believe but I am pro capitalism tbh. Although, I do support mixed economies that are like 88% capitalist.

I know that socialists generally want to protect the minorities which I respect and that's why I can be on the fence about this. But a socialist gov/economy can have too much control over the constituents I think. So yeah, what are your thoughts on the titles questions? I hope we can have a healthy discussion

I have this mutual acquaintance. An electrician. He speaks very intelligently. He's a very good speaker. Very respected by my peers. The man can speak for hours. My peers and coworkers revere him and believe he is some kind of remarkable hyper intelligent political being because he can recall some of History and is a good orator.

His political hero is Nigel Farage. He considers himself some variant of right-wing. He is extremely anti-immigrant. He attributes domestic British problems on civil servants. He advocates for the full privatisation of everything. He only ever talks about communism and socialism in the context of failure and refuses to see any good points. He says the statement "river to the sea" is unequivocally racism.

While talking about History and the British Empire, he talks about Britain like they were good guy colonizers and that their colonizing was beneficial for the people they colonized. He argues that the countries Britain colonized were not exploited, and that Britain built on and improved the infrastructure because of British benevolence/philanthropy. For "proof" he just says "look at them today" and cites GDP-per capita and follows it up with "these amazing countries we colonized are better than all their neighbours" then he cites a bunch of countries with poor GDP per capita.

Whilst discussing immigration, he cites that 70% of Somalians in Britain are in social housing, with a link supplied to support his statistic. Then he compares them to nationalities with a lower percentage. He says Somalia has an inferior culture that we imported, and they are an endless burden on British society. In a group discussion, I said to him that if he does not provide detailed context to follow up on why such a statistic is the way it is, then it's just a meaningless statistic, and he's using it in a xenophobic way. I received a roomful of angry fluoride stares from my coworkers and friends, but tell me am I wrong?

I've sat there listening to my coworkers and peers listen to and agree with this man, and even buy into his bullshit. Personally, I think he's selfish, arrogant, devoid of empathy, bending history to his biases.

I can't disprove his statistic. But likewise, statistics without context are meaningless. Please someone help me form a defence against this kind of sociopathy.

Conservatives talk a lot about how much of business geniuses they are and how materialist they are , yet shit their pants at the idea of millions of new workers coming to America . In a logical world , we could build these new people cities and put them to work and train their kids to be inventors and scientists . In America , on the other hand , we use the government to try and stop peoples natural freedom of movement and work because we have shit so backwards that it actually HURTS us to have more people wanting to work here.

Sorry but that’s called being bad at doing countries .

Not being able to absorb the poor people your empire creates is actually a big ass reason Rome fell into IMPERIUM.

I’m not saying other people have invented this , cause I can’t pretend . No country is good at this . China isn’t good at this either .

But , I think as a human race we should probably get good at this (number 1) I think it would be good for all of civilization to get better at absorbing immigrants and building cities quickly . Number 2, this would require the government to lead the way and have poor working peoples interest in mind , in which the investment thereupon will reap centuries of fruits and riches .

Throughout history, communists have collaborated and praised individual fascists and fascist movements.

The future communist leader palmiro togliatti wrote to his comrade gramsci in moscow that "the industrial classes are rather wary of the new regime, fearing unpredictable developments in the class struggle with fascist syndicates" (harrison, simon, 1996, 'togliatti’s letters to gramsci')

Communists like bombacci and pavolini joined the national fascist party of italy, bombacci toured the factories, one after another, promoting socialization.

One of the founding members of the comintern, henri guilbeaux, commented that mussolini was an "authentic, revolutionary heir to lenin".

In 1922, lenin transmitted the following secret instructions to foreign commissar georgy chicherin: "start a highly circumspect flirtation with italy immediately."

Why would lenin, one of the greatest communists ever, do this?

A senior soviet diplomat named vatslav vorovsky met with mussolini in november 1922, at this meeting, mussolini expressed his confidence in the stability of the bolshevik system.

Why would he invite mussolini and why would il duce praise the soviet system if they were, it's said, so ideologically different?

In november 1922, yuri steklov authored an izvestia article which praised the political pragmatism of mussolini.

Why would he do this?

In 1934, stalin noted publicly that fascism does not preclude the soviet union from having “the best relationship” (наилучшие отношения) with italy, this was in his speech, celebrating the first anniversary of the 'treaty on friendship, non-aggression and neutrality' between mussolini’s italy and stalin’s soviet union.

Why would stalin say this, if he's the one who "defeated" fascism?

A movement known as the european solidarity front for syria unites numerous political groups from across europe to defend bashar al-assad against imperialism and in september 2012, led by ouday ramadan, there was a visit by stefano de simone and giovanni feola, leaders of the fascist movement casapound italia, as well as fernando rossi, an ex-senator from the italian communist party, who sought to close ranks with the fascist movement in italy because of his support for gaddafi and subsequently for assad.

Why would they unite, to defend bashar al-assad's government, if they're said to be so different ideologically?

This text was translated from spanish to english using ChatGPT, it is taken from here:

https://helenerytmann.blogspot.com/2023/12/la-pregunta-sobre-nicaragua.html#more

Eventually, in the conversation, the question about what one thinks about Nicaragua will arise. It usually comes along innocently, like a floating duck. It is a question infested with bad faith. The question is not about the history of Nicaragua and the current state of the Nicaraguan social situation in relation to that history (which, by the way, is not even the history of Nicaragua but the world's history in that part of the world that we, and the people who inhabit it, call Nicaragua). It is not, obviously, about one's opinion on the rich Nicaraguan culture, its food, poets, philosophers, athletes, engineers, etc. Nor about the climate of the Gulf of Fonseca. No. The question at its core is a different one, that´s remains undeclared. The question is the following: is communism or real democracy possible? Or: Can a society different from this one exist? What the question about Nicaragua seeks is to take the disapproval generated by news that cannot be spontaneously understood in another way than as bad decisions made by the Ortega-Murillo leadership (such as the repression of students, the closure of the private press, the imprisonment and/or expulsion of opponents, and more) as a recognition of the failure of any attempt to advance in a project of economic planning and political management rooted in the idea of communism or real democracy. A more interesting question would inquire about the psychology of such a question, its bad faith, and the appropriateness of maliciousness in life.
Now, if one were to represent a party that recognizes itself as left-wing, as a member of a national legislative assembly, for instance, in any Latin American country, and the question was more like: "Do you adhere to the Ortega-Murillo regime?" The response would have to be that one adheres to the historic Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN), as well as, in principle, to any left-wing movement, which is not the same as declaring adherence to the Ortega-Murillo regime. "I am a Sandinista, sir/madame X, and if I were invited to Nicaragua today to assist in resolving the various problems facing Nicaraguans in their land, I would accept the invitation, right away" If the inquisition were to continue, countering: "But would you accept this invitation if it came from the Ortega-Murillo government?" I would respond that I would need to know the terms of the invitation, that is, I would need to know specifically what I would be invited to do. Mediate a dialogue with students, journalists, businessmen, and religious figures? Yes. To an assembly of the FSLN? It depends: to dissolve it and mediate the resignation of Ortega-Murillo? With the condition that, in the same act of dissolution, an international commitment (not a non-binding recommendation) is established for a nation-wide call and organization of a popular national constituent assembly, with the participation of sandinistas, following the release of all the regime´s opposition prisoners and the repatriation of all forced exiles. I would conclude by adding that what Nicaragua, like all countries of the world, i.e., society in general, needs, is an indefinite global strike, which would be peaceful due to its total massiveness, as a precondition for a global call for an international popular constituent assembly, which could well be organized in Managua or any other city of Nicaragua or the world.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna105842

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/advocates-hhs-questions-unaccompanied-migrants-child-labor-rcna87326

The gist is, kids who were able to cross the border and got placed into the care of adults have been found working unsafe jobs here in America.

These companies should be shut down in my opinion.

This is NSFW at its worst.

Do communitarians support capitalism? Wikipedia describes the philosopher Michael Sandel as a communitarian, and I'm interested in his work.

Why would someone choose to be a communitarian instead of a communist? Does anyone have any recommended reading on communitarianism that would explain its core principles?

If I'm not mistaken, the following terms are the most logical definitions of communism, anarchism, and capitalism based on historical evidence, common word usage, and empirical evidence from social psychology:

Government:

A government is a social institution with a complete and centralized monopoly on violence. The government may decentralize its provision of goods and services to municipal governments in a federal government system, but the centralized control of the military, police force, and border marshalls (what is called the US marshall in the USA), is what makes a government truly "a government".

Ownership:

For a person to own a piece of property, they must have the final say on how that property will be used and how the goods, services, and profits produced by that property will be used.

Communism:

A communist society is a society in which the government owns 100% of the means of production. This is what I think the former Soviet Union was.

Not only is the usual definition of communism factually wrong, but it also has some very irrational political implications.

The most common definition of communism is workers' ownership of the means of production. If AI automation reduces workers to 1% of the adult population, then would that mean that by the usual definition of communism in this hypothetical communist society, 99% of the adult population would be disenfranchised and lose the right to vote? This hypothetical communist society would have to get the 99% non-workers (the useless citizens) to do useless non-productive work so that they retain the right to vote. This is the logical consequence of organizing voting rights around union participation. This strikes me as an irrational view of society.

If the union says that non-workers can vote on laws, then that would mean that the worker democracy has ceased to exist and that a new kind of society has been born. A worker democracy in which most workers cease to exist because AI has made their labor redundant isn't a worker's democracy, but a regular citizens' democracy.

State violence was necessary to ensure that the Soviet government retained ownership of the means of production, otherwise, any enterprising individual harboring dreams of being a successful capitalist or feudal lord could seize property with violence (he could use guns, knives, or bombs). By capitalist, I mean someone who could use their newly seized means of production to sell goods and services in the open market, and by a feudal lord, I mean someone who uses their newly owned means of production to raise capital to hire thugs who will then extort others for money with violence.

Socialism:

A socialist society is a society in which the government owns 1-99% of the means of production. A socialist society differs from a communist society in that the means of production have not been wholly nationalized or socialized. Most economies are called mixed economies because they are partly socialist (there are government-owned businesses) and partly private (there are privately owned businesses).

An anarcho-capitalist YouTuber called TIK History made several different points about the Nazis being socialists, but the key point that I think is wrong is the one in which he claims that the unions were "nationalized or socialized". The nationalization of labor unions in Nazi Germany which lead to what was called the German Labor Front was not really an example of "nationalization" or "socialization" because even though the government controlled the management of unions, the owners of the companies, whose workers the former unions were set up to support, still had the final say on how much of their companies' revenue would be used to pay workers' salaries and they still had the final say what goods and services those companies would produce. I think TIK History took advantage of the confusion over the meaning of words to falsely label the Nazis as socialists even though the Nazis were very much into privatization. Wikipedia says the first mass privatization was in Nazi Germany.

The words "nationalization" and "to socialize" are almost always if not always used to mean that a government, not a collection of workers or a worker co-op, takes over a piece of property. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never seen the word "nationalization" used to mean that a worker co-op takes over a factory. The Communist Manifesto's definition of communism is inconsistent with the historical usage of the words "socialism", "communism", "socialization", and "nationalization".

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were not communists, they were anarchists. To be more precise, Marx and Engels were gradualist anarchists who suggested a vague system in which a communist society would slowly transition to an anarchist society in which the government ceased to exist.

Wikipedia defines communism as the common ownership of the means of production. If the word "common" is synonymous with the word "public" and "public" is synonymous with government ownership, then, logically, communism must mean government ownership of the means of production.

TIK History plays a nice little trick when he says that publicly traded companies such as Microsoft, Amazon, and Alphabet are examples of "public ownership" of the means of production. However, there are multiple types of shares. Most publicly traded corporations have 2-3 different types of shares.

TIK History conflates a share of a privately-owned company being publicly traded with a share of a publicly-owned company being publicly traded. These are not the same thing. I find this to be a very intellectually dishonest argument.

If I own class-C shares in Alphabet stock that means I have no say in how the financial resources of the company are used because I have no voting rights. I also get no dividends. If I have no voting rights, then I very likely have no stake in the company's ownership. Even if I received dividends, I would have no say in and no control over what percentage of the company's profits would go to paying those dividends because I have no voting rights.

You could even describe company dividends as an expense that has to be subtracted from the profits that will ultimately end up in the hands of the true owners of the company. The preferred shares (voting shares) are most of the time if not all the time, owned by a very small fraction of people and that necessarily means that most publicly traded companies are, in fact, very privately owned: they have so few real owners who can decide to fire all the executives, change employees' salaries, and decide if the company should be liquidated or merge with another company. TIK History makes the mistake of not examining the meaning of the word "ownership" when he tries to define the terms "socialism" and "capitalism".

Anarchism:

An anarchist society is a society in which the workers own the means of production and in which there is no police force or military force to enforce the laws passed by the worker unions or the one big union (if there is one central union). Each worker has to individually enforce the laws that are passed by the workers. This means that each worker has to walk around with a gun or some kind of weapon or walk around in gangs in which not all members have weapons. Non-workers such as the disabled, minors, and prisoners (if prisons exist in such a society) have no say in how resources are distributed and how the economy is organized. An anarchist society has to rely on decentralized violence or mob violence to enforce laws promulgated by unions.

I think anarchism is about decentralized violence and decentralized decision-making in society. That's why both anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-socialists can call themselves anarchists with equal conviction while attempting to refute each other's claim of being a true anarchist. In my opinion, anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-socialists (or anarcho-communists) are both anarchists to the letter. But anarcho-communists are not communists and are really anarchists in disguise. I think most communists are anarchists, and I think it makes sense if many organizations that claim to be communist but are actually anarchist in nature, should change their branding and naming to reflect their real ideology. Marxist communism is really just Marxist anarchism or gradualist anarchism.

I also think there is a strong desire among socialists who are really anarchists to label themselves as "communists". I would like to know why this desire exists. Anarchism is inherently incompatible with communism. Communism by definition requires a government, whereas anarchism demands that no government should exist. It makes no logical sense to say that communism is when no government exists when the former Soviet Union had a government. The government owning the means of production in the case of the Soviet Union is not the same thing as workers owning the means of production because who has the final say in how resources are used and distributed is different in each of these scenarios.

A decentralized society (an anarchist society) can be either capitalist, socialist, or feudalist. Anarchism is about political decentralization, not the actual distribution of resources. If I'm not mistaken, anarchist philosophy is generally not concerned with the distribution of resources and is far more concerned with the distribution of the power to decide how resources are distributed. Anarchism is flexible and overlaps with other ideologies such as capitalism and communism. Whereas capitalism and communism are both ideologies and economic systems, anarchism is an ideology without an economic system and that's why anarchism often overlaps with other ideologies.

I view worker co-ops as an anarchist mode of production. A market economy that consists entirely of worker co-ops would be a democratic capitalist economy if the worker co-ops interact with each other in a market economy and are not simply all carrying out government tenders. A government tender is a socialist means of allocating resources in an economy.

What the economist Richard Wolf calls worker democracy is democratic anarchism, not socialism. I think it's theoretically possible for there to be a totalitarian anarchist economy if, for example, the one big worker union of a country were to elect a union chairman (union president) for the whole economy who was granted the power to rule until his legally mandated age of retirement or death and could single-handedly make all the laws in the country. The laws made by this national union president would have to be enforced by each worker. Anarchy doesn't guarantee personal freedom. No political system guarantees absolute personal freedom for every individual, but anarchy is the only ideology that is explicitly about maximizing individual freedom.

Capitalism: a capitalist society is a market economy in which every person's survival is dependent on market forces. Each person in a capitalist society is market-dependent and has to participate in the market economy through their labor or through their ownership of property to obtain food, shelter, and water to survive. I define capitalism as market dependency based on Robert Brenner's work on the agrarian origins of capitalism.

Crony capitalism and government subsidies for corporations are both examples of corporate socialism. In other words, crony capitalism is socialism.

Feudalism: a feudal society is a society in which landowners own workers who are legally attached to the land they own. In other words, in a feudal society, a feudal lord has to sell his land to get rid of his workers and he cannot sell his land without simultaneously selling off his workers. The workers were referred to as "serfs" and "serf" is a synonym for "slave". So, a serf was a type of slave who could only be sold with a parcel of land and who was legally entitled to be able to work a subsection of that land for their subsistence.

I consider a mafia boss to be a prototype of a feudal lord. Capitalists use trade to amass wealth, whereas feudal lords use violence and war to amass wealth. The Game of Thrones series is an example of a feudal society in which feudal lords make a profit by plundering other lords' territories.

In conclusion:

When Marxists (or Marxist-Leninists), who believe that the government would one day cease to exist in a communist society, call themselves "communists", they isolate, stigmatize, and alienate communists like myself who don't believe in Marxism or any kind of anarchist thought.

I'm not an authoritarian and I'm not opposed to democracy. I just don't see how voting through worker unions (democratic anarchism) is better than or somehow more effective than voting in a direct democracy at a public voting booth for socialist policies. I feel that anarchists' desire to get rid of politicians, political parties, and the public voting booth in favor of worker unions, suggests that they're opposed to democracy. A worker democracy can be a direct democracy, but a direct democracy does not have to be organized around workers. What happens to non-workers in a worker democracy? In a worker's democracy, if you don't work, then you don't vote. This doesn't sound very democratic to me.

If you say that the government should exist because some people have bad intentions and a police force might be necessary to stop some people from carrying out their bad intentions, you will be labeled as an authoritarian or a proto-fascist because you support the existence of a government, which is an inherently authoritarian institution.

Anarchism: an anarchist society is a society in which the workers own the means of production and in which there is no police force or military force to enforce the laws passed by the worker unions or the one big union (if there is one central union). Each worker has to individually enforce the laws that are passed by the workers. This means that each worker has to walk around with a gun or some kind of weapon or walk around in gangs in which not all members have weapons. Non-workers such as the disabled, minors, and prisoners (if prisons exist in such a society) have no say in how resources are distributed and how the economy is organized. An anarchist society has to rely on decentralized violence or mob violence to enforce laws promulgated by unions.

I think anarchism is about decentralized violence and decentralized decision-making in society. That's why both anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-socialists can call themselves anarchists with equal conviction while attempting to refute each other's claim of being a true anarchist. In my opinion, anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-socialists (or anarcho-communists) are both anarchists to the letter. But anarcho-communists are not communists and are really anarchists in disguise. I think most communists are anarchists, and I think it makes sense if many organizations that claim to be communist but are actually anarchists in nature, should change their branding and naming to reflect their real ideology. Marxist communism is really just Marxist anarchism or gradualist anarchism.

I think there is a strong desire among socialists who are really anarchists to label themselves as "communists". I would like to know why this desire exists. Anarchism is inherently incompatible with communism. Communism by definition requires a government, whereas anarchism demands that no government should exist. It makes no logical sense to say that communism is when no government exists when the former Soviet Union had a government. The government owning the means of production in the case of the Soviet Union is not the same thing as workers owning the means of production because who has the final say in how resources are used and distributed is different in each of these scenarios.

I didn't really understand capitalism before I abandoned it, as it's easier to support it if you don't really understand it. So what time asking is, is there a Marx for capitalism? Is there a person that capitalist look up to as a person who writes and thinks then produces that knowledge for the people? And I don't mean someone who won at capitalism like Rockefeller. Since I didn't understand it well then I never bothered to look into it. And I'll admit me asking this question means I have a lot more to learn about capitalism.

Thank you

Basically the title. Marx throughly defines and analyzes capitalism as a mode of production, down to its very fundamentals. Then explains the contradictions in the system, and extrapolates a solution from the ongoing trends and historical precedent.

It’s literally a scientific analysis of it, and a scientific conclusion.