u/Additional-Oven-1151

I agree with several principles of communism, such as the idea that the means of production should belong to the collective, the planning of production, and the abolition of patents... However, I am much more skeptical about the abolition of money. I understand that a monetary system creates inequalities, but I do not see how we could realistically do without it.

I will give several examples to explain why I am skeptical :

How do you motivate people to pursue long studies if, in the end, they do not have any more advantages than others? I fully agree that passion and vocation matter, not just money, but money still plays a role. Imagine a person who is equally passionate about profession A and profession B, but profession B requires five additional years of study and provides no additional benefits. In that situation, the person would probably choose profession A. But if many people react this way, would there not be a risk of a shortage of people in profession B?

How would housing be allocated? How do we decide that person A has the right to a huge villa with a swimming pool while person B gets a small apartment? How would that work? Would housing be distributed according to family size? Would the villa be divided into several apartments? Would the swimming pool be requisitioned and turned into a public pool? And if it is too small to become a public pool, what would be done with it?

How would consumption be limited for environmental reasons? If people can take as many televisions as they want, what would stop them from putting a television in every room of their house? If everyone does that, it creates overconsumption, which is not good for the environment. The same applies to transportation: if people do not have to pay for fuel, how do we prevent them from using their car for every trip and therefore polluting much more?

For me, a communist system could only work relatively easily on a small scale, in small communities (such as a village), with relatively simple technologies and professions: farmer, plumber, butcher, baker, and so on.

It seems much more complicated when we are talking about societies of several million or even billions of people, with professions that differ greatly in terms of technical complexity, for example a secretary and a nuclear engineer. This is not an attack on secretaries: everyone is essential to the proper functioning of society. But objectively, it is difficult to claim that a secretary and a nuclear engineer possess the same level of technical expertise.

Therefore, I personally think that we should keep money. It is certainly imperfect because it creates social classes, but I believe it is unfortunately necessary. On the other hand, I think that if we abolished inheritance, private ownership of companies, real-estate renting as a source of income, and other forms of passive income, it could help reduce inequalities. It would probably not be perfect, but I do not really see how we could do much better.

Je sais pas vous, mais moi quand j'écoute les gens parler autour de moi ils y en a beaucoup parlent des divers canicules et des feux de forêt et ils sont attristés par la situation. Mais ils ne se remettent pas en question. Ils ne disent pas qu'il faudrait peut-être faire quelque chose, remettre en question leurs modes de vie.

À la place, ils disent qu'ils veulent acheter une clime, ils parlent de leurs prochaines vacances en disant qu'ils partiront plus au nord pour avoir moins chaud et ils parlent aussi de leurs divers achats inutiles...

Bref, la vie continue, tout va bien... Il y en a aussi qui prennent conscience évidemment, mais c'est très loin d'être la majorité. Ça m'exaspère...

Est-ce que vous aussi, vous entendez ce genre de discours autour de vous ? J'imagine (ou j'espère) que les gens habitant à proximité des feux ont une meilleure prise de conscience (à quel point prennent t'ils conscience ?). Évidemment dans ce genre de moment, il y a beaucoup plus de gens qui prennent conscience des choses que le reste du temps mais ça ne va clairement pas assez vite.

Edit : Je ne suis pas anti-clim. Évidemment qu'il nous en faut, il n'y a pas de débat là dessus. Mais je dénonçais juste le réflexe bête de se dire "J'ai chaud donc je mets la clim" sans remettre quoi que ce soit en question (En gros comme le fait la droite).

Hi everyone!

I'm not very knowledgeable about the subject, and I'd like to know if I've understood it correctly :

Communism is based on the idea that there is no private ownership of businesses or the means of production, and that these belong to the community (whereas, under capitalism, people can own a business and profit from the exploitation of workers), so that there are no longer any social classes.

Under capitalism, the main goal is to make a profit, and then use the money earned to buy things to meet our needs. Under communism, people decide together what the population needs, and the work is shared out (planning) in such a way as to produce only what is needed. Then, what has been produced is distributed according to the needs of the population.

It's this distribution that I have a bit more trouble understanding. How do you prevent people from abusing the system and taking more than they need? In a world where we'll have to consume less and less because of limited resources and climate change, how do you limit consumption? Do you set quotas? Does everyone have the right to the same quantity of things?

I don't think it would be fair to give the same things to people who work less than others or who have more skills than others. I don't see how it could work, except by having wages and prices to create a form of financial fairness and limit consumption. I don't see why it would be a problem if, at the same time, inheritance, property rental, private schools for the rich, and rentier income were banned. This system probably wouldn't be perfect, but none of them are.

Communism also says that there is no longer a state. What does that mean? That there is no real government anymore? And that everything is controlled by the people through direct democracy?

If I've understood correctly, communism is an ideal to strive for, and there is no precise definition of what it looks like or the exact path to achieve it. We don't know whether it is possible to achieve, but communists want to move towards it gradually by going through socialism, which is the intermediate stage between capitalism and communism.

From what I've understood, attempts at communism throughout history failed because power became too concentrated in the hands of one or several leaders, whereas in the ideal of communism, it's supposed to be something much closer to direct democracy. There were also geopolitical contexts, wars, and other factors that prevented it from working.

Have I understood communism?

Hello everyone!

I'm French, and I'd like to share my perspective on politics in the United States. Honestly, as someone on the left in France, I have a rather negative image of it.

I should point out that I've never visited the United States and I don't personally know any Americans. Everything I'm about to say is based solely on my own impressions, built from what I see in the media, on the Internet, and from discussions with other French people.

So it's entirely possible that some of my impressions are stereotypes or misconceptions. Please don't take it the wrong way. I know the United States is a huge country, that realities vary greatly from state to state, city to city, and person to person, and that you can't summarize more than 300 million people with a few stereotypes.

The purpose of this post is precisely to share the image I have of the United States and find out to what extent it matches reality. I'd really like to hear your opinions: whether you confirm some of my impressions, qualify others, or completely debunk them if they're wrong.

To begin with, compared to France, I get the impression that the United States is a very right-wing country politically, and that the left doesn't really exist. From a French perspective, the Republican Party is generally seen as a far-right party, especially since Trump's arrival. As for the Democratic Party, it's generally seen as a moderate right-wing or centrist party.

Do these two parties really represent the views of most Americans? Or are there many people who are further to the left but simply don't have a political party that represents their views, so they end up voting for the "lesser evil"?

Sorry if this shocks some of you, but in France, Donald Trump is very often seen as an idiot or someone who is completely crazy. Many French people struggle to understand how he could have been elected twice.

I also have the impression that the American social model is much less protective than the French one, especially when it comes to welfare, healthcare, and pensions. In the United States, I feel that you need a very good salary if you want to live comfortably. Private health insurance also seems to be very expensive. Is that true, or is it exaggerated?

Regarding environmental issues, I also have a rather negative impression. In France, even though few people actually change their habits, most people acknowledge that climate change is an important issue. In the United States, I get the impression that this awareness is much less widespread. I also feel that the United States is a country with no limits. Everything is big and oversized, with a lot of overconsumption. I get the impression that there are two kinds of people: those who simply don't care, and those who believe that technological advances will solve all our problems without questioning our way of life or our economic system. That also exists in France, of course, but I have the impression that it's much more common in the United States.

As for food, sorry, but once again I have a rather negative image. I often hear that junk food is cheaper than healthy food, and that this pushes many families to eat poorly. Is that really the case? Is it easy to find fresh, high-quality food at an affordable price?

As you've probably understood, my image of the United States is rather negative. That said, I don't think France is a model either. We also have many problems to deal with. In reality, all of these problems exist all over the world, but I have the impression that they are much more pronounced in the United States than elsewhere.

My goal isn't to provoke anyone. I know people do the best they can and live in a system over which they have little control. I'm not criticizing individuals, but the system. I'd be happy to read your responses. Feel free to tell me what I got right, what is completely wrong, or what needs to be nuanced.

Hello,

En 2027 je voterais pour Mélenchon. Mais honnêtement j'ai peu d'espoir.

Je pense qu'il peut largement avoir ses chances de remporter le premier tour à condition qu'Attal et Philippe restent tous les deux candidats. Par contre pour le second tour ça risque d'être beaucoup plus compliqué.

Je sais bien que les sondages ne sont pas fiables, qu'ils peuvent être orientés, qu'on est à un an des présidentielles et que beaucoup de choses vont changer d'ici là. Mais ils donnent quand même une petite idée, une tendance. Et là même si on est très optimiste en ajoutant 10 ou 15% aux sondages il n'atteindrait pas les 50%. Je sais bien que Mélenchon est très fort en campagne mais à un moment donné il faut être réaliste l'écart de points est trop important.

J'ai un entourage pas très politisé qui vote souvent blanc. Mais quand tu discutes avec eux tu sens bien qu'ils sont un peu de droite (ou du centre) ou disons plutôt pas fans de la gauche et encore moins de Mélenchon qui leur fait peur.

Donc je pense que dans un second tour Le Pen/Bardella contre Mélenchon beaucoup d'entre eux refuseraient de choisir et voteraient blanc on s'aptiendraient.

Je pense qu'on risque d'avoir un record de votes blancs et d'abstention et cela donnera un avantage considérable au candidat du RN qui a une meilleure base électorale que Mélenchon.

Qu'en pensez-vous ? Pensez-vous que Mélenchon a une chance ?

Bonjour à tous,

Je suis en première année de master en informatique et j'ai complètement foiré mon année.

Je n'écoutais pas en cours, j'en séchais certains, et j'ai pris de très mauvaises habitudes de procrastination. Au premier semestre, j'ai validé certaine matières mais pas toutes. Le second semestre a été encore pire. J'ai totalement décroché, je n'ai rendu aucun TP et j'ai eu plusieurs 0 aux partiels. On ne peut pas faire pire, le pire cancre possible.

À la base j'étais un bon élève. Mais, au fil des années de mes études je me suis de plus en plus laissé aller. Jusqu'à présent, j'arrivais toujours à m'en sortir de justesse, mais cette année tout a complètement dérapé.

Aujourd'hui, je ne sais même pas si je vais pouvoir redoubler. Est-ce qu'il faut une note minimale pour être autorisé à redoubler ? Si je ne peux pas, je ne sais vraiment pas ce que je vais faire. J'aurai un dossier catastrophique, et aucun autre master n'acceptera une candidature avec un dossier pareil. Si je part dans la vie active j'aurais sur mon CV un abandon, c'est pas terrible non plus.

Je ne suis pas en dépression, je me suis juste un branleur qui c'est laissé enfermer dans la procrastination et je n'ai rien fait pour en sortir.

Je sais que beaucoup vont me dire que j'aurais dû réagir plus tôt, et vous aurez raison. Si j'écris ce post ce n'est pas pour être jugé, je me déteste déjà suffisamment comme ça. Si je fais ce post c'est surtout pour savoir si certains d'entre vous, ou des personnes que vous connaissez, ont vécu une situation similaire. Qu'est-ce qui s'est passé ensuite ? Avez-vous pu redoubler ? Rejoindre un autre master malgré un dossier aussi terrible ? Ou avez-vous finalement choisi d'entrer directement sur le marché du travail ?

Merci d'avance pour vos retours.

Hello everyone!

I'm looking for a movie I watched a long time ago, but I have no idea when it was released. My memories are pretty fuzzy, so some details may be inaccurate.

Here's what I remember:

The main character is a man. He uses a narrow underground tunnel, almost like a natural burrow, located outdoors (possibly in his garden or near his house).

The tunnel is natural, very dark, and so narrow that he has to crawl through it on his stomach.

Going through the tunnel sends him a short time into the past. I don't think it's years—more likely minutes, days, weeks, or maybe a few months.

He comes out at the same location, but in the past.

He meets his past self and kills him. I think he then buries or hides the body nearby (possibly in the garden). After that, he takes his past self's place, and time continues normally.

Does this sound familiar to anyone? It's pretty vague, and I don't remember anything else because I watched it when I was a kid.

It's probably a fairly obscure movie (maybe even a TV movie), because I've searched Google and even asked ChatGPT, but neither could identify it.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions!