u/mceiland

I’ve continued my research into marxism, socialism, communism, capitalism, the works. I think that where I stand economically and what I think would be a good direction for society to move in has become more indignant in my views lately, after looking more into the economic systems of China/USSR.

My questions today are less skeptical of communism as a whole, but skeptical of the label itself. As I’m sure many of you know, it’s quite the heated debate between western economists and everyone else about if China is an actual communist nation. One side will tell you that with their mixed market, they’re not actually communist. Another person will tell you that they’re still communist, but just incorporating markets in a transitional stage.

I don’t see why any of that matters. I think the consensus otherwise is generally that China is doing well economically, and that their citizens have been elevated to a much higher quality of life than previously thought obtainable under “communism”.

I suppose my question is, why do people spend so much time focusing on China’s label? If capitalists can even mostly agree with you that China is succeeding, why does the label matter? Seems like all that matters is studying the system, improving upon its shortcomings, and implementing a similar system in other developed nations. And if not, explaining why it shouldn’t be implemented.

Extending upon that, why are marxists so attached to the labels “communism/socialism”? These labels are extremely stigmatized, and it seems like trying to build upon these words specifically is illogical. Why label yourself a communist, when you could call yourself something else, still have the same goals, and likely grow the movement easier?

Think about this: if you were trying to convince a staunch conservative to join a communist movement, they might turn you down if your organization is called the “National Communist Party”, just because of what they associate with that word. However, if you called it the “National Liberationism Party” (or something similar, just a word that’s not strictly associated with political ideology that can be used in place), then you might be able to convince a conservative to join the movement.

I think right-wing people are much more class conscious than often given credit for, however they associate being conservative with what they were raised as, or use motivated reasoning to justify applying that label to themselves. But if you asked a conservative, “do you dislike extensive government surveillance and political lobbying?” they might just tell you yes.

However, they would not tell you yes if you were wearing a bright red hat with a hammer and sickle. So, essentially my questions are: why the persistence of a useless debate on a label (specifically in reference to China’s economy), and why the insistence on continuing to use a stigmatized, propagandized label? What’s the problem with adopting a new name under the same value system?

Thanks in advance.

Hello, it’s me again, the person who has been posting these ridiculously long (almost essays) on the subreddit once every 1-2 days. I have more thoughts that I would like to share after being heavily criticized by capitalists on my opinions. (Some criticisms were actually constructive, despite the vast majority of them being arrogant zingers).

I want to talk about social democracy vs. socialism/communism today. It is my understanding that, in the creation of a communist nation, there must be a “transitional state” (coined by Lenin) which serves to fully transition a society into communism. Also, under my understanding, this transitional state would function similarly to the Nordic model, but with the understanding that the ultimate goal is the dissolution of the state into full communism.

So, with that stated, my question essentially gets back to revolt vs. reform, which is a post I’d previously made. If the transitional state’s values would be similar (if not the same) as what would exist under a social democracy (universal childcare, elder care, free healthcare, state-supported worker unions, higher corporate tax, high exit taxes, abolishment of/existence of a high inheritance tax, expanded public transportation, etc), then why must revolt be the solution?

I understand the concerns behind reform. All of the progress can be just as easily reversed through right-wing policies and the checks and balances that exist with most modern day democracies. But are there not also concerns behind revolt? The political instability caused by revolt itself is already a major issue, as a nation essentially becomes anarchist in the midst of revolt. What if the revolt does not work? And even then, how do you convince the public that this is the way? You can’t demonstrate the good of those policies until you hold the power to implement them.

Is the existence of politicians like Zohran Mamdani and AOC not already proof that the Overton window is shifting in a favorable direction? Is there not a way to force shifts in the right direction, and are those ways not safer and more effective?

These posts are basically just me jotting my recent thoughts down, and I’d appreciate it if you all could be kind. I will not commit myself to a cause unless I am sure it is the most effective way to help the people. This is all in the pursuit of truth. Thank you!

Hello, I am a socialist, and I’m curious as to how a capitalist would respond to some questions I have about both socialism/communism and capitalism. I am open minded, and insults will only make me take you less seriously. I’d appreciate if we could have meaningful discussion.

A common argument I see as to why communism would fail is to mention the death tolls that existed under specifically the USSR and Mao’s China, which mostly refer to policy decision that resulted in famines.

My question in response to this argument is this: is the death toll under capitalism not equivalent or much greater when considering things like the trans-atlantic slave trade, imperialism, reduced access to healthcare, and the greater existence of impoverished communities? What about the existential suffering that can occur under capitalism in groups that were systemically oppressed, such as Jim Crowe laws in America?

I also do not buy the argument that these were the result of less developed, young capitalist system. The same could be said for China currently, where the quality of life currently matches or exceeds the US’s in certain aspects. While Americans are certainly much more free, China’s infrastructure, affordability, safety, and access to healthcare far exceed the US’s. It would also be a lie to say socialism has never worked, due to the existence of countries like Burkina Faso, where socialism freed its citizens from dictatorship that favored US/bourgeoisie interests.

And if we’re considering democratic socialism, which would be essentially a watered-down version of full communism, what about scandinavian countries, where the quality of life far exceeds that of the US?

Thank you.

Hello, I recently started reading nonfiction literature a bit more seriously, and am struggling to fully comprehend some topics. How would you all suggest I use my journal to help? Should I just summarize things that I’ve read?

Hello, I recently started reading nonfiction literature a bit more seriously, and am struggling to fully comprehend some topics. How would you all suggest I use my journal to help? Should I just summarize things that I’ve read?

I recently started studying philosophy and political theory a bit more seriously, and I was told that I should read “On Liberty” by John Stuart Mills, since it is a foundational text on liberal philosophy.

I’m wondering, is there anything I should know prior to reading? I’ve done a little research on what the book is about and the historical context, but otherwise, but are there any particularly important things I should know before reading? Thanks.

I recently started studying philosophy and political theory a bit more seriously, and I was told that I should read “On Liberty” by John Stuart Mills, since it is a foundational text on liberal philosophy.

I’m wondering, is there anything I should know prior to reading? I’ve done a little research on what the book is about and the historical context, but otherwise, but are there any particularly important things I should know before reading? Thanks.

I just got done reading The Communist Manifesto, and it was abundantly clear to me that it is a call for action. Marx makes it very clear that the only way to achieve the goals he has in mind are through the overthrow of the bourgeoisie-interested state.

However, I’ve seen some things suggesting that, later on in Marx’s life, he began to question this idea in favor of a “government dismantling”. I could be totally wrong about this, so of course, correct me if I am.

So, I guess my general question is to ask what are your thoughts on reform vs. revolt? On one hand, I see arguments for revolt that say “even electing a democratic socialist only increases public trust in an already exploitive capitalist system, therefore making it a bad choice.” However, I don’t see the better option in this logic. What am I supposed to do, vote for the right wing? Is their argument there that I’m supposed to vote for right wing parties to decrease public trust in capitalist, making revolt more likely? (Albeit, hurting the average citizen while I’m at it, because of the right wing’s common incentive to favor capitalist interests)

On the other hand, there’s reform. I don’t see how, and feel free to call me out on my ignorance, electing a democratic socialist is the wrong option. If a candidate promises to attack the bourgeois through the legislative system that already exists, why can’t that be a feasible alternative to revolt? Could a system not be dismantled from within? (Historically, it has been shown that even the most airtight legal systems are vulnerable to fascism/dismantling when done properly)

And lastly, what literature would you all recommend for me to read in regards to revolt vs. reform? I have finished the manifesto, and plan to read State and Revolution as my next communist literature, although I think I’ll be reading other literature in between. Thanks in advance.

I was wondering what other people thought about this topic. I’m aware that it’s quite controversial, even within communist spaces. Personally, I can’t see any society with a COMPLETE dissolution of the state, however I can see its power becoming much more limited.

Marx argues that, under the right conditions, certain crimes like petty theft would dissipate. If nobody is hungry, there’s no reason to steal food. However, this view doesn’t take into account antisocial behavior, mental illness, in-group biases, etc.

So, if someone with ASPD or schizophrenia were to cause a ruckus in a stateless society, by say, killing a family, what’s this stateless society’s next move? There’s no police force or justice system to reprimand his actions, so would it just be handled locally and case-by-case?

Either way, I can’t see a system like this being sustainable. I’m all for the ideas presented by Marx as far as the proletariat being exploited, but sometimes I wonder if the ideas may be too idealistic. Thoughts?

is the best way to get level 20 through spike rush or swiftplay? i’m just trying to get to that level and whatnot so i can play the comp

How should I go about reading The Republic by Plato? Yesterday, I started reading (admittedly on 1-2hrs of sleep as I’d just gotten home from vacation), and my progress seems to be slow in comparison to how fast I can get through other books.

With annotations, and stopping to make note of different notable topics (including adding sticky notes to make sense of harder spots) and to understand the line of logic, it took me about 30-40 minutes to get through the first 20 pages of The Republic published by Penguin. Not to be arrogant, but I typically consider myself quite intellectually competent.

Is The Republic just genuinely that hard, and did you guys also struggle? Did you even read it or do you think a summary suffices? Personally, I enjoy the challenge and think it will help me think critical about harder subjects in the future. I guess I’m just concerned with how truly hard it seems to be.

Edit: and other than its difficulty, is there anything you all think I should know prior to reading? (I’d say I understand the gist pretty well, using socratic method to reveal flaws in intuitive reasoning, or that’s at least what i’ve gathered from the first 20 pages)

Thanks!

How should I go about reading The Republic by Plato? Yesterday, I started reading (admittedly on 1-2hrs of sleep as I’d just gotten home from vacation), and my progress seems to be slow in comparison to how fast I can get through other books.

With annotations, and stopping to make note of different notable topics (including adding sticky notes to make sense of harder spots) and to understand the line of logic, it took me about 30-40 minutes to get through the first 20 pages of The Republic published by Penguin. Not to be arrogant, but I typically consider myself quite intellectually competent.

Is The Republic just genuinely that hard, and did you guys also struggle? Did you even read it or do you think a summary suffices? Personally, I enjoy the challenge and think it will help me think critical about harder subjects in the future. I guess I’m just concerned with how truly hard it seems to be.

Thanks!

edit: mods, if this breaks the rules, can you please suggest a place i can make this post? i often find it hard to use subreddits efficiently (or even want to at all) because of their superrr strict nature

What political literature should I read in order to make sure I am as politically competent as possible? Currently, my reading list is The Republic, The Communist Manifesto, Wealth of Nations, State and Revolution, The Conquest of Bread, On Liberty, and The Souls of Black Folk.

What else should I do to ensure that I’m as politically competent as possible? Any specific topics/historical context I should read into before reading my literature?

What’s the best way to ensure my research is efficient? I’d hate to spend a ton of time on reading things that will bring me nearly no benefit in a political discussion. I’d also like to make it clear, I do not mind reading multiple perspectives on things. I see issues in the world today and want to be competent enough to come to a reasonable conclusion on nearly any topic.

Thank you in advance!

hello. i need an editor for short form content, 20-30s long, with relatively simple requirements. i will be going out of pocket as im not paid for my content yet, but that is not out of the realm of possibilities and im willing to offer the editor a cut along with the per/video rate. dm me if you’re interested and i can send a reference for what i need, my channel, and you can give an estimate on price. and since the rules require, i could pay possible $7-10/hr. (as said, price can be negotiated, the videos are very simple) thank you!