r/Socialism_101

It's clear that during the early stages of Nazism (until the early 1940's or so), that Jews (and others) were taken to work camps with the intention of putting them to work for bourgeois corporations.

Given that these prisoners were essentially free labor, why did the Nazis choose to start kill them en masse instead of continuing to exploit their labor as they had done before?

When I look this question up, all the answers are things like "Hitler personally had an ideology of hating the Jews, so he eventually started having them killed instead of just enslaved". But was that it? I wouldn't think Hitler would have that kind of power—given that he was basically a puppet for the bourgeoisie, wouldn't they have taken back over or replaced him if he tried to mess with their profits like that?

Given that, was there a material reason to start killing prisoners instead of just enslaving them?

(I don't mean to offend anyone by this question and am Jewish myself for the record, just curious)

Is it because of the left-wing regime? Or international powers?

I'm fully anti-capitalist though I haven't gotten too deep on the topic because I only started to open my eyes once everything that happened in the US happened and because of my studies in philosophy.

I'm not sure if Maduro is "truly" a socialist but my Bolsonarista/MAGA (I'm from Brazil; Bolsonaro is our former president who is now in prison) family says that Venezuela only became bad because of the left-wing regime of Maduro. Then they bring up Cuba, and how they failed because of their left-wing regime.

Then it was mentioned how Venezuela has the right resources (oil) so why are they doing badly? My uncle said it was because "nobody wants to work" and that "companies were thrown out of the country so there's no jobs". Then my father said that Trump commenced a regime change in Venezuela because China kept taking oil from there so they were trying to stop China from getting oil.

I'm not even sure how the whole "fight for oil" justification was even a good one; if China was buying oil from Venezuela isn't that a good thing for Venezuela? Why would the US do that then?

I'm pretty sure I heard somewhere that Cuba wasn't doing too well even before the US embargo so is it left-wing policies that are causing this and the blockades are just worsening it?

I know Cuba's and Venezuela's condition is truly not very good and that it mostly started around the time they had a left-wing governance but I also know that it might just be a similar situation in Brazil where the "left" (PT; socialist turned social democrat) is good (bolsa família, final da escala 6x1, SUS, etc.) but it's still corrupt and not truly socialist; maybe it's the same situation?

What's actually going on?

PS: sorry if I said anything wrong, I'm not too educated in this and English is not my first language.

I learned at school that nationalism was a key component of Italian Facism, German Nazism and Japanese Imperialism. I pointed out some things about our country that seemed like nationalism but got told it was patriotism which is ok. i don't really understand the difference.

Title.

Do you think religions are progressive?

I‘m not throughly informed about Venezuela, so sorry if the idea that Venezuela is actually socialist isn’t a very popular idea here, but I’ve definitely seen people that do think so, so to these people (genuinely asking):

I think everyone here knows how media can lie blatantly. But after the recent catastrophic earthquake in Venezuela, how can you defend how the government is acting the people that want to help and aren’t allowed because they are public opposition to their regime? Or people that aren’t allowed to pass until they resort to bribing the cops and then they’re allowed? Most importantly, that the government is barely helping those people?

And how does this affect your perception of the rest of the regime?

I don’t know much else about what’s happening there other than that, and I haven’t seen that much discourse online. I’d just like to see what’s the diverse thoughts on these, I’m not making any accusations

Hello, comrades of the Red Faction.

Let me say upfront: I'm a convinced capitalist. Even so, there's something I want to find out here – and I'm asking in good faith, without any hidden agenda.

I've seriously studied communism – Marxism in particular – and read a fair amount on it, and I've had my share of discussions about it. And in those discussions I kept hitting the same response: people would claim that I supposedly don't even know what communism actually is.

So I figured: why not go straight to the people who hold this conviction and represent it with pride.

Important – I'm explicitly not looking for a debate here, I just want to understand the reasoning behind it. So I'd appreciate it if the answers could be as factual, informative and neutral as possible (at least for points 1–3). A system that gets artificially talked up will always sound great in theory but never work in practice – and that's exactly the kind of thing that doesn't help me, whether we're talking anarcho-capitalism or communism.

My questions to you:

1. In your view, what are the three most important of the various strands of communism?

2. What exactly do you believe, and why?

3. What would the establishment, stabilization and actual execution of this conviction look like in concrete terms?

4. Do you also see weaknesses in the system itself, or points that don't convince you? If so, how do you deal with them – does the principle "the end justifies the means" ultimately apply?

These are real, sincere questions. Thanks in advance for your answers

I’m liking for honest answers here. Please tell me what you think socialism means, how’s it different from communism and why you think it’s a better system?

I'm a former "anti-Tankie" who now recognizes the good that the Soviet Union, China and friends have done for the world although I still recognize their flaws, but I'm still put off by leftist defense of Russia and their invasion of Ukrin and Iran. If anyone has any sources that conflict with the western narrative of these nations that aren't very clearly created by their regimes, I'd be interested in looking into it. The most complete justification I've seen is the need for global multipolarity, but I feel that the as long as these nations stay as national liberal theocracies their role as a counterbalance to the United States will only create more forever wars, like the world previous to World War one. I'm not trying to combat or look down on supporters of Russia and Iran, but I want to understand why you genuinely feel that way.

I’ve found some socialist/communist YouTubers (Spooky Scary Socialist, Hakim, Red Pen, Second Thought) and I was wondering if BadEmpanada and The Kavernacle also fit among them?

I’m curious how people here justify socialism when history shows it consistently leads to economic collapse and authoritarianism. Look at the Soviet Union or Cuba where millions of people didn't flee those countries because life was good; they fled to escape poverty, lack of basic freedom, and political repression.

It seems incredibly ungrateful to advocate for a system that has historically failed every time it’s been tried, especially when you are likely enjoying the prosperity and personal liberties provided by the very economic systems you're criticizing. How can you support such a system when the reality is almost always state controlled misery?

I am asking not to critique I’m just genuinely curious and I would appreciate if someone would provide a serious answer. I apologize if someone already asked this which seems to be likely. Thanks for your time!

Thanks for all of your answers

I've been wondering about something and I'm curious if anyone has written about it.

Was Marxism, at least in part, made possible by what Walter Benjamin calls ´´empty homogenous time´´?

Marxism emerged around the same period as Hegelianism, positivism, and other philosophies of historical progress. They all seem to assume that history unfolds through a single, continuous timeline with successive stages. Marx's sequence of modes of production (primitive communism → slavery → feudalism → capitalism → socialism) seems to fit this way of imagining history.

What made me think about this was Benedict Anderson's idea that print capitalism and newspapers created a new experience of simultaneity, where millions of people imagined themselves living through the same historical experince. That seems closely related to Benjamin's idea of empty homogeneous time and Reinhart Koselleck's work on modern historical consciousness. Henri Bergson also criticized the tendency to reduce lived time to homogeneous, measurable time.

So my question is: could this modern conception of time have been a precondition for Marxism and other nineteenth-century philosophies of historical progress? In other words, would historical materialism have been conceivable without this idea of a single, homogeneous historical timeline that everyone shares?

I also know that Louis Althusser criticized linear and expressive conceptions of history within Marxism. Does his work address this issue, or is he talking about something different?

Has anyone written directly on this connection? I'd appreciate any recommendations, whether they're Marxist or critical of Marxism.

I have a degree of sympathy for socialist thinking (I can absolutely see the rationale for nationalising the commanding heights of the economy). What I cannot quite get behind is taking small-scale private industry into public ownership. Practically, the possible benefits from systematically dismantling small businesses do not outweigh the costs, in my view. How do you reconcile this conflict?

Marx wrote an excellent critique of capitalism, included a series of contemporary opinion and dissected it well, even naming the methodologies for that critique. But neither he, nor Engels, resolved any practical design rules. Or proposed any more than a philosophy of living which has massive gaps in the practical application.

Whether by ballots or bullets, socialism will win. When it does, how do you picture the transition to it looking? Do you abolish private property in an instant? Do you phase out markets over time? Or will it take decades, like China's current metamorphosis? What are the main priorities to tackle first?

There's a debacle going on the gamer communities about the ownership of video games and so on, the gist of the matter is that when someone buys a digital copy of a game they are actually, in a sense, renting a license.

Often people in these discussions cite the "You'll own nothing and be happy" phrase from the article "welcome to 2030" published in 2016 by the World economic forum and written by a Social Democrat politician named Ida Auken, it's clear that people post memes and write the prahse in comments because they fear that the issue of video game ownership is jut the tip of the Iceberg and that personal property as a whole might be in danger because of the changes brought forth by the digital age.

I think there's some credence to the argument (but It's just a hunch more than a informed opinion) because the capitalist class will naturally adapt to what's best for itself and it seems better (from my perspective) for them to turn personal property into a rent-adjacent model, I guess it could be called the 'alienation of personal property'? It would tie personal property back to the ownership of the means of production in a immediate and direct way such that the only true proprietors of even personal property left in our societies would be the capitalists, which definitely gives them more power, I also believe that it's safe to say that the WEF is a bourgeois organization and they would not publish an argument that doesn't support their reason to be.

So my main questions are:

Do you think there's credence to this scenario? Is it even something new? If it is new and there's really a ideological shift going on within the bourgeoisie in regards to the ownership of personal property, what could the communist stance be on it?

First, I'd like to start with saying that I'm from the UK, otherwise known as the main vassal state of America other than Israel (or the other way round depending on how you look at it).

I may sound ignorant asking this question as I know of the atrocities that the police in America have committed regarding minorities. However, I'm definitely confused as to why the police in general as a profession is just going into a career that directly kneels down to the ruling class and does its bidding.

Is the ideal situation abolishing the police as an institution? If so, what would replace them? I ask this question because of DSA members advocating for abolishing the police.

i apologize for posting 2 questions so close to one another but i just want to get perspective from other people with ocd (mine is moral but any is welcome) and any advice they may have on how to help the people around them and also keep themselves stable and not suicidal under capitalism. it can be especially hard when everything you do feels like a moral conviction of being some evil bourgeois and like you can't live without participating in society, thus tainting your morality. leftist circles definetly do not help because everything anyone says nowadays sounds like a declaration of moral failure for doing anything but they're kind of necessary to be around to build community and make real change. anyone without ocd is also allowed to give any advice if they have. thank you so much

To me it seems both that it would be far easier to organise the input of the masses, under our current material conditions, and attract more people to subscribe to model.