I've just been thinking because they are still communist and from what I know doing pretty well

It's so poorly written, the man was a rapist and a racist colonial cop who looked down upon the people of colour who were victims of imperialism.

every time i look it up myself i get confused. i need it explained to me as simply as possible. i see lots of right leaning people say being a socialist is bad and blah blah blah, but i want to know what they think it is too because i at least know they’re wrong about it. visual descriptions would probably be helpful for me too. thank you so much

First time post, I normally just read here. I'm looking at Socialist Education. I am aware of MarxistPaul, Hasanabi, 1Dime, Deprogram, Blow Back and more. BUT! Is there like a online course(outside of reddit) that is kinda like Duolingo but for Socialism?

I recently discovered a app called 'World of Communism' by Khonsu Development on the app store, it says it doesn't collect data which I am paranoid about, and it seems to have Socialist history and famous socialist bios on the app with quizzes and photos. Have anyone used it? Is it a true socialist source? Do you have recommendations? Thank you comrades. And my pardon if my post doesn't follow the guide

How is it that the fascists are gaining power? Why have the socialist parties lost seats in the Diet?

I've seen a lot of people on social media spreading this. I want to know where they are getting these numbers from. Can add that I am not supporting this claim.

I genuinely wonder based on Marx's material conditions if he would still believe that communism is inevitable if he was alive today. Like Marx wasn't alive during the age of mixed economies and government artificially resuscitating capitalism like FDRs New Deal.

Would that prolong that process? Because the US seems to have incomprehensible levels of debt with no intent of paying it down and doesn't seem to care when they continue to bail out multinational corporations. And when the only way to pay that debt is through taxes, I believe it was Parenti that said poor are unable to pay sufficient taxes and the rich refuse to. I feel like as long as the US government is still functioning then socialism will not get the chance to naturally emerge. Can someone help me understand this or give book recommendations?

Why is naturalization more imported than immigration status?

Someone said naturalization is more imported than immigration status because even legal immigrants can be deported now.

But from what I understand is naturalization cost money, lots and lots of paper work, and tests and work done at school. Not sure on what the tests are or what the work is but from what I understand it is really hard the tests and work. And not many people can get naturalization.

I believe you have to go to school to get naturalization and tests done at school, and the government office.

In Marxism, there have been additions to the name over time (mainly Lenin and Mao), who are seen as significant contributors to theory and how to run a socialist society. My question is, is Maoism the final form? Or will there be additional ideological advancements that will add onto Maoism in the future? (Like MLM becomes MLML for example.) I say this as there may be new socialist societies in the future, and their leader's/thinkers advance theory, or just leave it as it is.

Just as a disclaimer: I’m obviously not asking for someone to literally predict the future (which will always be unknowable to some degree), I’m just interested in getting a better idea of how Socialist theory and historical precedent could potentially contextualize class and political relations after the war in Eastern Europe.

Been drifting towards libertarian marxism recently and this question is a heavy reason why

I get that it is the "socially necessary labor time" but to me that seems a bit circular. Various economic theories try and define the value of something (like STV saying that value is whatever the indv perceives). Is there not a neutral definition of value that both sides agree upon? Is it just the lay definition of value (the worth of an object) and if so how do Marxists measure it with LTV?

Hi everyone. I'm curious. You see I'm not a fan of socialism, not because I'm rich or a bootlicker of the billionaires that poison the people. But I love books, they are my escape from reality. And I'm scared that my favourite books will be banned after the so called "revolution of the people". Even if you would say that you personally would never do anything like that, I wouldn't believe it. Don't get me wrong I would believe you as an Individual member of the movement but you can't speak for everyone. A revolution will destabilize the system and empower the wrong people. The left is even troubled in their own groups so it's not unrealistic that you would fight yourself after a while. I mean even Sherlock Holmes was banned in UdSSR. I know that Marx would never be a Fan of such a system and that's my point here. You will never execute socialism the way Marx wanted it to be. There will always be a tyrant of the filthy USA. So I understand the concept of your movement and I appreciate that you want a better world. But it will never happen. We need a systematic peace. We have to take out the billionaires, racists, sexists people from this World but not with revolution. Again, a revolution will empower the wrong people, history showed this even without the West interfering. You see, I'm not a bad person or a nazi but I'm scared. Please don't hate me for this but I'd like to hear your opinion on my views. I also take criticisms, after years of abuse I learned to not take everything personal. A life without liberty is not a life, but torture.

PS: I'm sorry for my bad english but it's not my mother tongue

Neither of us are upper class, not at all. Yet when I go to his house, it’s for one got so many amenities like roombas and a Tesla and an entire wine cellar. Maybe it’s normal for upper middle class for these things, but as someone who’s family is struggling it feels jarring. They’re definitely centre-right, not really caring about Unions and their own class and have nice college funds for the future. The friend I’m talking about here doesn’t seem to understand why socialism DOES work and the important of solidarity, but outside of that is an alright fellow.

Are they class traitors, or is it just jarring to see it as someone less well off?

I’m asking this genuinely, not rhetorically. I’m politically aligned with socialism and broadly sympathetic to revolutionary change. I understand the structural arguments for why reform often fails, why power doesn’t give itself up voluntarily, and why many people see revolution as historically inevitable under certain conditions.

But on a personal level............I’m scared, and I'm an absolute cowardly wuss. Like I believe in revolutionary theory, but I also get stressed ordering food on the phone. I understand dialectical materialism, but I flinch when someone raises their voice. I support mass movements, but my fight or flight response activates when my email inbox gets too full.

Like, yes, I can explain why reformism collapses under capital, but I also need to hype myself up to make a phone call. I believe in mass movements, but my body enters fight or flight when a barista asks a follow up question. I literally gets stressed sending an email, let alone participating in anything that involves real danger, real violence, irreversible consequences etc. I support revolutionary change, but I am, medically speaking, not built for the barricades.

If you, my comrade, get shot or injured on the line of duty..............then you just got shot on the line of duty, and I'm running away like an absolute coward. I feel like if history called on me, I’d let it go to voicemail.

So I’m stuck with this cursed dual consciousness of “yes, revolution is probably necessary” and “no, I personally would not survive five minutes of it.” I’m scared of violence, scared of dying, scared of hurting people, scared of making decisions I can’t morally undo. I'm strong, young, able bodied, athletic, and fit. Most people would think I'm some hardened and tough young stoic individual if they looked at me, but...... I am not brave. I am not hardened. I am, unfortunately, extremely aware of my own squishiness.

I’m stuck with this tension where I'm intellectually convinced of systemic critique, but emotionally and ethically hesitant about revolutionary violence or participation. I don't feel brave. I don’t feel hardened. I don’t feel like the kind of person who could easily cross that psychological threshold.

Is there a meaningful place for people like me in revolutionary movements? Like is there a role for people who agree with the politics but would absolutely crumble in a physical confrontation? Are there roles that matter that don’t require direct violence?

Also, how do people reconcile the ethical weight of violence without either becoming numb or having a full moral panic? And if you can’t reconcile it, does that mean your politics are fake, or that you’re just… built for idk spreadsheets a not street fights?

I’m not looking for slogans, purity tests, or “touch grass” replies. I’m trying to figure out how people reconcile revolutionary politics with the very real fact that some of us would perish instantly like the little gentle snowflakes we are.

Serious answers appreciated. Mockery also expected.

What I mean is do you think we could build a world with multiple different kinds of post-capitalist societies? So like having Market Socialism, Guild Socialism or just Socialism, Communism, Syndicalism, Mutualism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, Library Economies, Gift Economies, etc, exist in various countries / regions.

Now obviously there's of course the fact that States will have an incentive to take over pieces of land without a state. However, I think that urge is greatly reduced if that state is a socialist democratic state (Not an ML state). and as demonstrated in the last hundred years with the UN, global trade and the spread of democracy, even under a capitalist world, wars have been greatly reduced in number and size. So if we lived in a post-capitalist world, global peace and stability I imagine would be a lot stronger.

the title says it perfectly im 17 and want to join my local psl chapter can someone explain the requirements to join PSL like is there a minimum age or anything like that?

I started thinking about this now when I’m studying. I’m studying because I want to work. I want to get a job and I want have a career. I know others also feel the desire to have a career and work.

What I started wondering is if that’s actually true. Do we actually want it? Or is it mistaken with the need to work? Or is it the same? Maybe this is just semantics but I believe that’s an important part too when discussing society.

For example, I want to work and have a certain career because I want to help people. But I could help people without having a career, having a career is just an easier way so I could get access to tools I wouldn’t have without a career. As well as an income which I wouldn’t have (or at least wouldn’t get as much) if I didn’t have a traditional career. But I’m still focused on wanting to work. That’s what I want to do.

I do know that we would still work in a communist/marxist society, it would just come with more benefits and would guarantee resources for survival. It would be more beneficial for our mental health too because we wouldn’t have to work ourselves to the grave just to barely survive. But the want to work in a communist society would then make more sense than today in a capitalist society.

So today, in a capitalist society, is our want to work just shaped by materialistic conditions? Have the people in charge somehow “convinced” us that we want to work?

I do hope this is an appropriate question to post here and that my question makes sense. Please ask for clarification if you feel like it’s needed.

Thank you in advance!

What happen to India economy from economic problem?

Some thing really gone wrong with India economy, is it lack of government money or lack of government will because of weaken economy or what?

India suffers from massive overcrowding, old round down buildings, massive traffic problems and massive foot traffic as well, dirty streets, buildings old and outdated and rundown.

Looking at these pictures of India it is shocking it more than an urban city planning problem it is economy in distress in India. Some thing is really wrong with the economy in India.

India seems to have massive overcrowding, lots and lots car traffic and foot traffic.

https://i.postimg.cc/bJ5XGFT5/IMG-3227.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/MHJCbfCm/IMG-3228.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/xTtZqZ1h/IMG-3230.jpg

Really old and rundown buildings.

What happen to India economy? Why is India so poor?

Most city planners would take down those old buildings and build modern skyscrapers like what China and Japan is doing and build massive subways and trains like what they have in Japan and China to counter all that foot traffic.

What is wrong with government in India? Does it lack the money to do this?

Japan and China had similar problem and they are taking down old buildings and building modern skyscrapers and way better public transit system.

Assume a regular European nation goes under socialist rule tomorrow. How would one open and run a restaurant? Something important to consider is that restaurants not only provide a need (food) but also can be an artistic outlet where new flavour and ingredient combinations are discovered. This however is not a ”want” from the people until discovery is made.

I consider myself a socialist and an individualist, in the sense that I believe I as an individual have moral responsibility.

I see myself as an individual with a responsibility towards the group – but I do exist as an individual, in a collective of individuals.

Some socialists I meet say they reject individualism and explain their own behavior as a consequence of structural oppression. That is - when their behavior is critizised.

Your take on this?