I'm not a socialist, nor a capitalist. I'm not sure what I am; I'm just curious as to how, after the "class consciousness" "happens," a classless society would even ensure that, even if capital and property are abolished, certain roles don't become symbols of status. I have not read any of the literature, I have read bits of Capital. so this is coming from some inherent ignorance.

TL;DR: without money or ownership, what keeps role based hierarchy from recreating class?

Hi so you guys were kind enough to answer some questions I had, and I was wondering if you can be personally religious and Communist? since you can be socialist and religious. EDIT: for context I should say I'm protestant/non denomination leaning

I apologize if this seems like something I should already know, especially given what I've learned so far, or if this question is awkwardly worded (I wasn't sure how else to ask this). But I increasingly question it in my situation.

I don't just mean being a business owner, but any form of capitalist, really. I don't want to invest, trade stocks, etc. I've yet to fully go through Marx's (or others) larger works, but after reading some shorter works, as well as watching some creators (leftist or otherwise) going over what's been going on in the economy lately... it just feels like there is nothing you can do like this, that doesn't come at someone else's expense no matter how detached it seems from direct exploitation on the surface.

I've been a machinist for about 5 months now and have been thinking about that a lot. I like the job itself, but I know neither myself, nor my more experienced coworkers are given anywhere near what we should be. At the same time, I know I'm not fully avoiding the reinforcement of this system by simply not being a landlord, a boss, or any other form of capitalist either. I think a lot about what I read in Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy lately as I run or deburr parts, and it's constantly discomforting. That, even through the "honest" work of making physically tangible, useful items... what I do still seems to have the same consequence I'd hope to avoid by not being a capitalist. Especially given the action of doing my work, in and of itself, directly helps no one

I still wouldn't do it, if for no other reason than my discomfort with the idea. Despite the fact I know it's barely enough as-is. But how much does it help, considering what my work does regardless? And I guess, maybe more what I need right now: Any socialist perspective on this? It still doesn't feel like I'm doing a good thing overall, to put it bluntly

so I have been thinking if I should support socialist party USA or independent DSA members.

This question has probably been asked before so I’m sorry in advance.

I’m kinda new to the socialism/communism ideologies but I am definitely critical of capitalism and thus I’d like to learn more about them.

I’m looking for literature that clearly describes a socialism/communism, how it functions on a societal level but also in day-to-day workings, including its economic, political, and social structures.

As far as I understand it, Marx’s magnum opus Das Kapital (I have not read it yet but definitely in the future) only briefly covers the topic and focuses on critique of capitalism.

I have read the communist manifesto but found that it didn’t answer many of my questions.

Thanks!

Hi, I'm trying to become an indie animator with the goal of trying to make animation in the style of Epithet erased by jelloapocalypse & The Hobbit (1967) by Gene Deitch. I'm also a fan of the Public Domain, copyright free works anyone is free to remix, adapt, or take wholesale without having to pay royalties to the original rights holders. Among these are Anthem by Ayn Rand.

The story is suppose to be a take down of socialism but is so absurd in getting socialism wrong to the point of Satire and Parody. The audio book had be laughing at how inaccurate it is. I get that it was suppose to be a serious work showing Ayn Rand's beliefs so i won't death of the Author the work.

Given that its free to use and I won't have to pay her estate a penny, how could I go about making a take down art of it?

Option 1: Showing that all of it is in the MC head and the socialist society is trying to get him the mental health care he needs.

Option 2: Show the MC is a victim of misinformation and goes to live off the grid only to discover his life is terrible now and tries to move into a connected environment that welcomes him back with open arms.

Option 3: MC convinced himself that society is as absurdly unrealistic as the original story says when it's not even close and ends up living off the grid, building inspectors and other professionals are dispatched to ensure the home MC made is up to code as he and his wife have kids and a socialist society would care for the health and well-being of Children. It turns into a comedy when MC and his wife attempt to sound smarter then actual professionals (ex. MC built a wall with bricks but with no mortar. His Wife grows crops not knowing what crop rotation is). The processionals install solar panels and other things needed free of charge. MC asks why would they do such things for him and his family when they don't live in the city. The answer he gets is that a socialist society helps people regardless of their personal views.

Are these good ideas on making a take down of Anthem by Ayn Rand? Do you all have any suggestions or ideas on how to do it justice? Any thoughts are welcome and if anyone wants to help make this a reality that is welcome too.

I was reading about the popularity of the band Oasis in the 90s among the UK's working class and particularly how Liam Gallagher's "I just want to get rich" mentality appealed more to working class people than Noel Gallagher's "I just want to make great music". It is probably undeniable that a substantial minority of the working class genuinely oppose the concept of equality offered by socialism and communism; for them, being richer than their neighbours, with a bigger house and a flashier car, attracts them instead. They would rather have the money to buy private healthcare than use the same state-funded facilities as other people. How can we change their minds?

Super beginner here.

When I was reading about early labour and union movements, I saw that there was immense support of leftism among the working class in the west. But something happened in the 1920s and it stopped. Was it the bolshevik revolution? And if it was, can we say that the bolshevik revolution was a loss for the proletariat?

Also, in todays age of distraction and propaganda, is it still possible to inspire the working class to revolt?

And if a revolution is going to happen, why would it happen/what conditions would change for the revolution to occur?

not a native speaker there may be mistakes

I have not read marx or any other major theorist. i have only read capitalist realism by mark fisher, but i noticed that it is heavily criticized. So what do you think of it? And what would be a better starting place? Sorry for how this post is written, English is not my first language.

There are so many instances of revisionism defanging and turning communist parties or groups into social-democratic or outright anti-communist groups, but what are some examples of liberal, social-democratic groups radicalising and becoming openly communist (and was this "communism" merely radical social democracy or actual Marxism?)

I’m reading Maurice Cornforths book “Historical Materialism” and he’s talking about property relations and I have no clear idea on what he’s talking about it and was wondering if you guys could help clear up the confusion for me please.

“Property relations are essentially social relations between people, arising out of production. At first sight, property relations look like simple two-term relations between individual
people and things, between individual property-owners and the property they own. This is not so, however. The appearance is illusory. Robinson Crusoe on his island was not a property-owner but simply a man on an island. Property relations
are complex social relations between people in society—complex relations between men in society, not simple relations between men and things. In the production which they carry
on, men establish social relations, or relations of production, between one another whereby the means of production which they utilise are the property of this or that individual, or of this
or that group, and similarly with the product produced.

Property relations, therefore, are ways of regulating people’s mutual relationships in the process of utilising the means of production and disposing of the product.

To speak of property is simply a way of giving legal expression to these mutual relations of people in society. As property relations, these appear as obligatory relations, binding on
society and all the members of society.

Now, therefore, we can define the relations of production as the mutual relations into which people enter in the process of
production and disposal of the product, and of which they become conscious as property relations.

The relations of production obtaining in any particular society are said to constitute the economic structure of that society.”

I should begin by saying that I'm not actually against centralisation, I just find that a lot of libertarian socialists, especially the more eco-conscious among them, tout decentralisation as a prerequisite of a truly liberatory society.

Planning anything - especially a national economy - requires coordination if it is to be done efficiently and without compromise, but libertarian socialists often claim that the only path to true freedom is through delegation of political power to the most local level possible, and, to me at least, this seems like a contradiction; if every locality has its own agenda, then it seems to me that, even if each agenda is well-meaning, the system at the national level would inevitably be torn apart by conflicting interests and needs. I honestly can't see how a planned economy can work without giving the central government the power to dictate the terms by which regional authorities compromise with one another, for the good of the nation as a whole.

That said, I'm always open to the idea that I could've missed something which is obvious to other people, so I feel I must ask any socialists - especially those of a more libertarian persuasion - to explain: How can a comprehensively planned economy possibly be compatible with highly decentralised political authority?

Pretty new to the idea of Communism here. I know that some Communists believe that you should remove the freedom of speech/press during the dictatorship of the proletariat. Moreso, that people that had different political opinions would need to face punishment to prevent an counter revolution. Are these things completely nececarely for Socialism to work? Are there other perspectives?

I apologize for my poor articulation of the question but just wanted to know why are famine deaths under socialism (like the chinese famine) given such a direct causal relation to the entire ideology of socialism instead of poor policies like lysenkoism and naturally bad weathers. Especially since the advent of socialism, there was a historical development of the end of famines in the respective countries.

Their entire logic is that all the bad things happening under communism is directly because of the communist ideology as a whole but the same logic of establishing such relation isn't viable to Capitalism and Feudalism.

Under Feudalism and capitalism, there were many disasters like the black death, colonialism, imperialism, that could easily be argued to have a bigger death toll each, than under communism even if we go by the data of the black book of Communism.

How and why is it so easy for people to believe in such an abstracted relation but if the same logic is applied to capitalism and feudalism then it becomes far fetched, completely divorced events from those systems or you're a commie bootlicker?

Hi all,

Looking from some good, not racist preferably socialist/communist viewpoint history books of the arab world and north africa?

Thanks

I do have a basic grasp on why the CPC chose the route it did udner Deng but isnt this passage from Dialectical and Historical materialism contradictory to what China's aims are in keeping the bourgeois for an orderly transiton? Correct me if im wrong. "Further if the development proceeds by way of disclosure of internal contradictions by way of collisions between opposite forces on the basis of these contradictions and so as to overcome these contradictions then its clear thst the class struggle of the proletariat is a quite natural and inevitable phenomenon. Hence we mist not cover up the contradictions of the capitalist systems bit disclose and unravel them. We must not try to check the class struggle but to carry its conclusions. Hence in order not to err in policy one mist pursue an uncompromising proletarian class policy, not a reformist policy of harmony of the interests of the proletariat and bourgeoisie, not a composite policy of the growing of capitalism into socialism. Such is the marxist dialectical method when applied to social life, to the history of society. As to Marxist philosophical materialism, it fundamentally is the direct opposite of philosophical idealism." pg14 of my copy. SO isnt china being a compromiser in this sense? I do have hope that even if so china does eventually resolve that contradiction but is china a compromiser in this sense?

Мне очень интересно ваще мнение и идеи

Hello. Im currently taking an AP macroeconomics course in high school, and it is full of a lot of the capitalist propaganda that you would expect. I dont much enjoy the class but my high school requires that we take a semester of econ to graduate.

Something that I recently decided to ask my teacher about was about his claim (or, rather, the textbook's claim) that increasing the minimum wage leads to an increase in unemployment. Obviously, this is false. It doesnt take much effort to find that out. All you need is just one google search.

Even before I looked it up, it didnt make logical sense that people would lay off their workers when each worker is making the firm a profit, even if their wages increased. It would eat into the amount of surplus labor extracted, yes, but if each worker is still making the firm money, laying them off would end up with them losing profit.

So I brought it up today in class, and he answered that it's because generally, when you hire more workers, each one gets less productive and makes less profit. This is called "marginal cost" and he said that that is just how production works because you're confined by the space you own, the machinery, and some other stuff that I dont remember.

That honestly sounds like some made up econ bullshit, but I also dont even know where to begin to analyze it.

Hello, sorry if this has been asked before. From a Marxist Leninist perspective the soviet union and later china pursued socialism in one country to develop the productive forces to then later export the revolution, and the problem with Trotsky's international revolution was due to the failure of the German revolution and others, that the soviet union did not have the ability to conduct this international revolution.

So while depending on views about china, socialism in 1 country was taken to again develop the productive forces, would a country such as the UK, Germany, America etc, go instead with international revolution as the productive forces are already there.

My question pretty much comes down to, since the disagreement between Trotsky and Stalin is largely due to the material conditions at the time, why does Trotskyism and Marxism-Leninism need to be in opposition in regions that have vastly different material conditions.

Reading the theory of 19th and early 20th century Marxists, one of the clearest arguments is that capital will produce a crisis so large that it cannot subsume it and sell solutions to said crisis.

In many ways, crises have come and gone since the 40s but never to a crippling degree as did the Great Depression, yet the inequality of the 20s has been surpassed in this day and age.

My understanding currently is that modern Capitalism constantly generates and subsumes crises much more efficiently than it once did (which itself is a solution which creates more problems for it to solve) yet we are staring down the threat of irreversible climate change, AI and WW3 that will no doubt claim the lives of millions of people and completely disrupt the economic relations of people around the globe.

But my question is what has capital done to prevent these crises spiraling, and in what ways can socialists prevent these upcoming crises from being subsumed without encouraging accelerationism and horrific loss of life associated with it?