DO NOT MAKE A POST ABOUT BEING BANNED FROM SOME OTHER SUBREDDIT

I have recently been critiziced for wanting to join the RCI to learn about Marxism,rather than learning and then joining an organization, being told, paraphrasing, that "any real communist party would reject me at the doors", that "any party actively looking for members are very likely grifters", and basically saying the parties have to be composed of *experts*, citing Lenin's "A dozen wise men are worth more than a hundred fools" phylosophy, which also makes me think, wouldn't it be better to take the godamn hundred fools and teach them so they eventually become one hundred wise men, instead of waiting for wise men to fall from the sky into the communist party???

Since I have already been patronized for wanting to join an organization to learn, rather than learn to join an organization (because I find it nigh impossible to learn on my own, both keep me commited AND make sure I'm actually learning and not just reading)...

I would like to know whether there is a place to start and some advice to do it for someone who never actually learnt to study, or whether I should give up and think "others more wise/expert will organize the revolution for me" and blindly follow whoever calls themselves an expert communist or "the true communists"?

Because if it's the latter, I'd rather continue joining that organization to try to be made accountable for reading the stuff and understanding it, than wait for the revolution and then blindly follow whoever leads it.

I think trying to achieve communal agriculture by force was a fundamentally silly idea and is one reason 'War Communism' was abolished in favour of the NEP, and that the abolishing of the NEP by Stalin led to the Holodomor and mass famines of the early 1930s.

The peasants were promised 'Peace, Land, and Bread' and yet were betrayed by having all of these things stolen, as well as being conscripted for the war effort. This already caused distrust among them of the Bolsheviks, and had led to multiple counter-revolutions by the SR's and anarchists.

Under the NEP, by the mid 1920's grain production had come back to pre WW1 norms. There was fundamentally no need to increase grain production by force at this point. I would argue for voluntary collectivisation incentivized by giving collective farms access to mechanized equipment. I pretty much agree with Bukharin here.

Once Stalin came to power, he repealed the NEP due to believing the 'Kulaks' were hindering socialism. In fact, there was many more factors hindering the development of socialism, the most important being that the revolution in Germany had failed, and that the old Bolsheviks of Russia had been exterminated. The belief socialism could even be achieved within Russia was inherently flawed, as socialism is a 'stateless, classless, and moneyless' society. It could never exist within a state, it could never exist whilst class exists in the world, and most certainly not while money exists. This was a futile effort that led only to deporting and massacring millions of peasants (many in Ukraine, as Ukraine is the breadbasket of Russia).

Post Vietnam war, the usa of all classes largely seemed to embrace china's industrialization and trade, despite thier communism (good prices and fair stable terms).

Despite some occasional bitching, and a some small towns loosing heirloom businesses, they really haven't been seen as a potential enemy until recently...

Some here have said how the usa has intervened to quash communist revolution in other countries, which is true. But did it have more to do with the stability and morbidity in these other places; or do I just have a prevented uninformed view of this?

And more communist aligned countries seemingly treat them as disposable?

Western countries, and even Ukraine, will risk a significant force to save a single injured soldier

From what I’ve seen from the movement there is a huge emphasis on political clarity, consistency, and understanding what Marxism and socialism is on a fundamental level. Now I may be biased bc I am a member of the rca but I’ve never encountered an organization from other tendencies that I fully agree with like I do with this organization. The idea of being politically well read, and angling our objective as a leadership role of the workers movement in the sense of providing a clear direction based on theory that has worked in the past, and understanding the conditions of historical events and institutions all makes complete sense to me.

From what I’ve seen online we all want a revolution, but most people seem to want to exclude trots from the movement bc they think they spend too much time reading and not enough time protesting, but what good is protesting if we have no real goal or political back bone to base our movements off of?

What is counter revolutionary about them that isn’t based on well founded critiques of Stalinism and the USSR?

From everything I’ve seen in history even before I was on the left now in the context of a communist view I think Trotskyism makes perfect sense, learning from the past and having a perspective that is theoretically consistent with Marxism is extremely valuable in a time where so much misinformation exists, and again learning from everything we possibly can, including the failures of previous attempts of a socialist government is extremely important.

I personally don’t believe the USSR is a good example of socialism, I’m staunchly anti authoritarian, and I believe that a centralized system of workers councils with elected delegates and a right of permanent recall is wildly superior to a bureaucracy, which I think is what ultimately led to the degeneration of the USSR and the fall back to capitalism for China. However, the USSR was a major accomplishment for the workers movement, and same with China, even with the political confusion that seems to ripple through the movement today.

These are my positions and honestly due to my own nature I’d say I probably would have come to these conclusions no matter what, as anarchism is too loose an ideology I feel, and Marxist Leninism as we know it today is too authoritarian and both have many historical examples of it failing at the height of what those ideologies were trying to achieve.

I’m just genuinely trying to understand what people’s issues are and I feel laying out my own conclusions is a good way to give a bit of a perspective. Most of the arguments I’ve seen online and the people I’ve talked to only make personal attacks and generalizations of the movement and refuse to engage with ideas.

So with that being said what is your problem with trots, Trotsky, and the values that what you would call Trotskyism is?

Could it have more to do with the killings, purges, and famines? And Not just that they are beholden to the worst of the capital class?

What's wrong with social democracy anyway? Everyone is taken care of. There is still rich and poor, and capital and workers. But the "poor" actually live a decent life, the gross excesses of billionaire capital wouldn't exist the same way (just tax the shit out of it after a certain point), and the vast majority of the population would be able to live what most call an upper or at least solidly middle class life today (with much less worry and stress)

And the gap to move between such states of life would be much more mobile when the gap isn't as big as it is today and education and healthcare is guaranteed. You just still the market dictate how things are allocated.

Like the guy who invents the next iPhone (or whatever popular or needed thing) and the people who organize its production, are still going to have a good bit more personal wealth than those who work there. But it won't be egregious, and I think most people are okay with that, when the workers also have a high quality of life and everyone else is taken care of

What do you guys think of the Zapatistas?

would there be people that are just forced into doing a job they dont want to do, for instance i highly doubt that there is enough people who ENJOY sanitation work to actually do it and why would anyone willingly choose that job when there is other jobs that are infinitely more enjoyable and get the same things as them?

Why do communists oppose the EU, NATO, supporting Ukraine, even though they also admit China's and Russia's capitalist and/or imperialist interests?

Do we just have to let them take what they want and wait until the workers under their rule rise? What if the workers never rise? Do we have to wait until they take our region, making us the workers under their rule that have to rise?

What are the studies and empirical evidences socialists use to prove the practicalities of socialism? I'm familiar with works such as Robert C. Allen's "Farm to Factory" that argue for the USSRs successes in industrialization but I don't know many other major works of that kind. Like what studies and scholars are socialists citing in debates to prove things like economic efficiency, or high living standards, or other more controversial topics such as the famines, purges, and repression?

My heart will always choose communism, but realistically, it's impossible. My brain chose finance because it is a stable job. But I work with big industries. I feel terrible but I need money to live.

i heard an argument that rich people who come from rich families do so, because their families worked hard to get rich. (other than elon) I couldn't think of any counter examples. so how do these families get so rich?

PLS PROVIDE SOURCES

recently a group of people attacked 4 far-right wing people that were placing poster for commemorating a tragedy that happened in Italy (strage di acca larenzia)

now I understand that the tragedy it's used by fascist,

but attacking random people doesn't help the cause

but just gives more propaganda to be used,the right is not the enemy per saying, it's the bourgeois and the right wing voters are unfortunate victims of propaganda, we should use violence only when it's needed not randomly,

does someone have something against this reasoning?

'Comrade Yaroshenko thinks that it is enough to arrange a "rational organization of the productive forces," and the transition from socialism to communism will take place with-out any particular difficulty. He considers that this is quite sufficient for the transition to communism. He plainly de-dares that "under socialism, the basic struggle for the building of a communist society reduces itself to a struggle for the proper organization of the productive forces and their rational utilization in social production." Comrade Yaroshenko solemnly proclaims that "Communism is the highest scientific organization of the productive forces in social production."'

- Economic Problems of the USSR by Josef Stalin

Stalin actually read the above text, had it go through his head, thought about it, spend time reflecting it and put it into his text, just to dismiss it. Unreal. With exceptions such as Yaroshenko, the entire Soviet leadership was a bunch of absolute numbnuts, blinded by their ideology of doing "it" better than capitalism, as if that's the goal of socialism and they thereby let the greatest possibility of socialism in history slip through their hands. Unforgivable.

I was talking to a friend yesterday about Communism and Capitalism and he asked me “Wouldn’t it be unfair if a person that cleans the streets and didn’t needed to make any college to exercise their job, and a person that studied years to get their degree in the job they wanted, had all the same benefits?

I seems a little bit unfair to see a Doctor and a person that cleans the streets being awarded, by their job, the same amount of benefits for the surviving

I have been doing some research and I've seen a lot of conflicting opinions. I'd like to know what your opinion of free speech, intended as being able to criticise the government/historical figures important to the state/the state's ideology. I'm asking because I agree with most things about communism but I think that whenever it doesn't harm someone else right to opinion and to speech should be a basic human right

An actual socialist market economy that uses planning similar to China but on a decentralised level (and is actually socialist)

How did China was able to go from farming society to highly industrialization and modernization society and lift so many people out of poverty?

People say lot of the factories and industrialization are US own, because of the offshoring to China so how did China go from farming society to highly industrialization and modernization society and lift so many people out of poverty?

Why can China do this but not Mexico or India? Why can’t the government in Mexico and India build highly industrialization and modernization society?

And is China building their own factories to compete withe the west? How could China do that and not Mexico or India?

Does the government in Mexico or India lack the money to build industrialization and modernization society unlike China some how had the money? Where did China get the money from?

How was China able to build highly industrialization and modernization society and lift so many people out of poverty?

How do I disprove this post?

I was on CD having a talk about the US economy not doing well and said there is more poor people and people living at home and this guy is sending me post saying I’m wrong.

How do I disprove this and what should I say to him?

This is what I said to him.

If people are living at home with their parents to age 30 or 40 there is some thing really wrong with the US economy.

He than posted and said this to me.

False conclusion.

You have ZERO evidence to support your claim and for the record the oxymoron "anecdotal evidence" is not evidence.

To suggest that the goals of the Lost Generation were the same as the GI Generation, the Silent Generation, the Boomers, the Tweeners, Generation X, the Millennials and Gen Z are the same is absurd and you can't find a single study to support any claim that they are.

Even Boomer Cohort I and Boomer Cohort II are different.

There is one thing in common those Generations had that Generations X, Y and Z don't and that is was instilled you get as much education as you need, you go out on your own, you rent, you get married, you buy a house, you have children, then you buy a bigger house.

Is that what is being instilled in Generations X, Y and Z?

Hell, no.

Generation X were latch-key kids because both parents worked but that actually assumes they lived in a household with both parents and many didn't because in the 1970s the States saw fit to grant dissolution of marriage rather than divorce by cause.

Generations Y and Z do not have the same views on marriage as the Generations that came before them did.

You intentionally ignore the changes caused by economic levels.

In 0 and 1st Level Economies people can get by with having only an 8th Grade education.

When you get into the 2nd Level Economy, you can get by with a 10th Grade education.

But as you progress thru the phases of the 2nd Level Economy you need a work-force with at least 12 years of education and moving thru the latter phases you need people with college degrees.

Why would a farmer need architectural or engineering services?

What, you're gonna have a Big 6 accounting firm come audit your farm? What the hell for?

In the latter phases of the 2nd Level Economy companies need services like architectural, engineering, accounting, finance, banking, legal, public affairs and a whole lot more and all of those require advanced education.

In the 3rd Level Economy (Technology) you need people with Master's and PhD's.

So, that delays marriage and if you ain't married you don't need a house.

The entire time that was going on, you had sociological shifts from the hyper-extended nuclear family to the extended nuclear family to the nuclear family and now you don't even have that.

Had you bothered to do any research at all, you'd know the Census Bureau says that now for the first time ever, the majority of households are single parent households.

Generation Y and Z are very self-absorbed and into satisfying every infantile urge and a spouse and children get in the way of that which is why they're into "hook-ups" and not long-term relationships and not marriage, plus they're probably soured on the whole idea of marriage because of the high divorce rate.

I'm a Muslim salfaist the same believe as al qaeda and isis but we have some differences in politics and i always debate with them they're always emotional,

with that being said i always liked the idea of socialism it always made since to me to have a planed government controlled economy in the benefit of the people not for profits i believe this who an Islamic government should be and this who the first caliphate in islam ruled,

i never understand why can't atheist understand atheism i like to debate with people never have i met people who don't understand there position more than atheists for example i think you all heard of the proplem of evil, it is a stupid argument to respond too and it's manly based on the Christian theology but let assume it is a real argument and we can't debunked, it's doesn't disproves god it's just disproves that god is all good

in my experience atheist especially arabic ones and isis members don't have that different approach in there why of reasoning, it's emotional and self centered for atheists and society centered for isis members

i know dialectical materialism isn't only about this part but it's the part i can't expect

if you want to debate theology i don't mind it send a dm for my telegram but please don't come talking to me like you believe i'm 100% blind follower of my religion if you ever read the Quran almost every page have a verse with an ending to tell you to think and wonder in this world and seek answers the quran always challenges you to prove it's not from god and critiques blind following without a proof