Yeah why is this the case? Like yes, famines did happen but nobody intentionally goes out of their way to cause a famine. These famines under communism were almost always short lived and then once the rough patch was over quality of life skyrocketed. Meanwhile under capitalism famines are intentional (as we saw in India under Churchill) and smaller strategic famines through price gouging and artificial scarcity are occurring ALL the time, EVERYWHERE, even into today.

I don’t understand why this is consistently their big “gotcha”

Hey everyone,
I’m looking for some realistic career and life advice from leftists. Although I am constantly involving, right now, I identify as a socialist. I’m currently in my early 20s attending community college to get my base credits before University. I didn’t take a traditional path. I got my GED and faced a pretty steep learning curve when I first started college. I’ve had to build a lot of academic grit to pull my grades up, but I’ve done it, and now I’m looking at transferring to a 4-year university.
Here is my issue: I want to live in a major West Coast city (ideally Seattle or San Francisco), I want to make a good living ($100k–$180k+ long-term) so I can actually afford to survive independently in high cost areas, and most importantly I want to spend my career actively advancing public transit, specifically high-speed rail along the West Coast (like Sound Transit expansions or the CA High-Speed Rail Authority).
I am trying to map out a career path where I can help build carbon-free, collectively owned public property and protect workers' rights without selling my soul to a private corporation.

Right now, I’m looking at a few different technical paths to get me there:

Environmental/Mapping: Majoring in Urban Planning / Geography (focusing on GIS mapping and NEPA/CEQA environmental compliance) to design equitable routes that connect working-class communities to jobs and legally defend rail from NIMBYs.

Contract/Workforce: Majoring in Planning or Labor Studies to work on Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) or Community Benefits Agreements (CBAs), so that multi billion dollar state projects strictly mandate union labor and prevailing wages.

I’m hitting a mental roadblock regarding the job titles. One role that highly aligns with contract enforcement and offers great pay/pensions is a Transit Labor Relations Officer inside a public agency. But from what I understand, Labor Relations sits on the management side of the table.

As a socialist, I don't want to be seen as a "company cop,” or a bureaucrat by the union workers or my own community if I have to negotiate against a union to balance a city budget. I want to stay ideologically connected with my values, and I'm also just not 100% in on doing just frontline union work, which I’ve thought about.

Ik that frontline union organizing (noble though it may be) has a high rate of burnout and lower pay, whereas a public agency or infrastructure consultant role would give me stable hours, safety nets, and the technical leverage to actually get trains built. Also, to be completely honest, while transit unions are technically quite progressive, as a woman, I worry about being involved in the physical construction industry and traditional blue-collar unions. I don't wanna feel like I'm in a boys’ club. I could be totally wrong, but it's an obvious concern that came to mind. But again, if I feel that the union work would be more impactful and more in alignment with my ideals, I can certainly take on some discomfort.

My questions for you guys:
Is it possible to maintain a reasonable amount of ideological consistency while working a high-paying infrastructure job in a public transit agency?

If you see someone working in a role like a PLA Planner or Labor Relations for a state agency, do you view them as a someone whose role is fundamentally opposed to yours, or do you view them as a progressive buffer inside the state system?

Should I pivot my focus entirely to the union-side of things (like working directly as a research analyst or general counsel for a union like the ATU), even if it means sacrificing some of the direct urban planning/rail mapping work? Is there a good middle ground?

Is it realistic to try to thread this needle, or am I being naive of West Coast bureaucracy?

I know there will be purists in my comments, and I'm open to all of the opinions; I would just like some balanced, mature advice from people who are genuinely wiser than me. Of course you guys can also tell me about your careers or alternatives that seem more up my alley. Thx!

Im a 13 year old brazilian who's currently learning more about communism/socialism.

I've tried reading the Manifesto in portuguese, but I struggled ALOT while reading it, to the point I had to read a sentence once or twice to understand it.

I read it in english and I did better, but Im still afraid that I wouldnt be able to fully understand it in portuguese (yes, it may seem futile, but I am just THAT perfectionist).

Can someone give me tips on how to understand it better (and to stop being lazy and actually read the thing because its too non-stimulating to me too)? :[

I’ve always reconciled with this question. Marx describes the group as a reactionary and conservative force that serves the interests of capital. As I see it, the petit bourgeois is a group in constant competition/ conflict with the proletariat, and historically speaking communist and capitalist societies have to always give concessions to them. So Excuse me for my lack of imagination, but how would the petit bourgeois ever give up in their concessions for the benefit of the proletariat and/or be reabsorbed within the class struggles of the proletariat? Can this group ever see eye to eye with the proletariatrian struggle? How can they voluntarily give their production without conflict? I would like to see a future were the role of the petit bourgeois/ peasantry be abolished. But are we in constant odds with the group?

I’ve heard some people describe socialism as a system of publicly owned enterprises which extract surplus value and instead of being profit that surplus value is taxed to cover public goods. BUT that doesn’t sound like the system of 5 year plans and production for use instead of exchange that I thought socialism was all about, like a non financial system. Then I thought hmm under Stalin there was a masterplan for the economy and workers were paid what google is saying wasnt a fiat-voucher currency. I’m just confused, where did the wages come from, surplus value or fiat?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_7dHQJ3nhc&list=TLPQMjIwNzIwMjY1Rxsa3rPP3g&index=1

The Wisconsin Democratic primary for governor has gone haywire. Over the last week, Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez dropped out amid a campaign finance scandal, and a candidate who had suspended his campaign, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, rejoined the race — immediately nabbing an influential endorsement from Gov. Tony Evers. Meanwhile, state Rep. Francesca Hong, a democratic socialist, has surged in recent polls.

Is it good?

Basically, when debating on this platform, someone challenged me to explain why the revolution must be violent and why it cannot be relatively peaceful. They said that the fact that every previous revolution of a similar kind was violent doesn't necessarily mean that the socialist revolution must also follow that trend. After all, the socialist revolution is different from the previous ones in some other aspects, so why not this one too? I've been reading theory for a while and I like to think I understand why, but I realized I am not able to put it into words without dumping half of the communist manifesto. I need a way to explain it briefly.

Edit: A revolution must be somewhat violent and authoritarian by definition, so I guess it wouldn't really be a revolution if it was peaceful. So basically the real question is why would it have to be a revolution and not a peaceful transition.

Marx said that the contradictions of capitalism would increase and push the working class toward revolution, and it happened in Russia, was close in Germany, Britain had a general strike in 1926 but lacked revolutionary leadership. In the USA there was rising working class militancy in the trade unions

The solution for capitalism was social democracy, keynesian economics, FDR's new deal for workers and it worked, until neoliberalism came along and removed pro working class policies, and here we are now

I suppose this also taps into the possibility of revolution and socialism in the 1st world, where economies are so large that the capitalist class can choose to give up some profits to the state to stave off any revolutionary sentiment that may exist. If conditions continue to decline for workers, they will naturally respond with working class parties and intensified class action with strikes and mass protests. Why would the capitalists accept this when they can do a return to social democracy and maintain their economic and political power? The capitalists already saw the threat of revolution arising from conditions in Russia, and they adapted accordingly

In the UK there's a group called "patriotic millionaires" they say they want to pay more tax to address the wealth divide, if ideas like that catch on what chance does a revolutionary party have?

This combined with a lack of class consciousness in most (all?) western countries would seem to me, to mean that parties like the green party in Britain, or a more radical democrat party in the USA, who just have to throw a few scraps to the working class, would be enough to divert any building of revolutionary parties

I'm active in a party in the UK, we talk to people on the street and try to build class consciousness, even those who struggle to get by are sometimes driven by racism and hatred of immigrants, I can't imagine their conditions worsening and they turn toward revolutionary socialism, just as likely they double down on their bigotry and turn toward fascism

I'm new to learning about socialism but seeing the way china acts in terms of how it does not allow independent worker unions, and Chinese companies still extract surplus value of their workers, often out of the country such as Indonesia where I'm from.

And also seeing that is justified because it's still in a transitional state towards socialism, how come some actions seem like they are getting away from socialism and more towards nationalism.

Idk I'm just confused and lost because if socialism is the way to go then why after deng administration or someone else idk i forgot where he introduced markets and it lifts 800 m people out of poverty. Either the story i heard that from missing a lot of nuance or maybe there's something else that happens that actually part of the socialist gov policies that lifts 800m people out of poverty. Please provide more context for that

Genuinely curious and need insight about that because it seems really contradictory to socialism values which is probably it is because I'm new to this.

Please provide more insight and also don't be mad and accuse me of not understanding socialism enough to justify their actions because i genuinely don't know.

Maybe i could provide more sources but that's just the examples I could come up with on top of my mind

I notice a consistent pattern in chronically online leftism of leaders like Stalin or Castro being praised for their ideology, but it is plain in history that both leaders were punishing of homosexuals, any religious believers, women, or conscientious objectors. For example, the UMAPs in Cuba were known to hold, enslave, and torture LGBTQ+ individuals, religious people, or proponents of democracy, similar to the repealing of rights for women and homosexuals as well as the creation of gulags in the USSR. I understand the support of the ideology of socialism or communism, and I am a socialist myself, but why are we as a group so idolizing and tolerant of bad actors in history because of their “aura” or for the simple fact they were far left? I do not come from a place of perfect knowledge, obviously, and if I have made some false conflation or markedly incorrect statement/have written in bad faith, please correct me respectfully.

In transitioning to Marxism, would that power structure still exist, or would no one be above the other? I see a problem with that, under capitalism, because it give narcissists and power hungry people opportunities to take advantage and exploit the workers, specifically with wage labor, etc. I work with a narcissistic person as well, and he has no problem with following rules, until it affects him or another coworker directly. Sort of an ego boost/white knight behavior. How will Marxism make sure these people have no ability to rise and take over the workplace, then therefore take exploitative action?

Has there ever Been a theory proposing that profits always seem to rise to the top echelons due to regulatory capture, taxing labor and not passive income, and by other means?

The Afghanistan war was obviously bad but I struggle to see how they should have responded to 9/11, you can't withdraw troops from the middle east just after the attacks because that would be surrendering to terrorists and you don't do that because it invites more terrorist attacks, so what were they supposed to do? Nothing they did before to provoke the attack counts, assume it's September 12th 2001 you can't turn back time

I’m trying to open myself up to new perspectives.
I don’t know enough theory to establish a concrete stance, rather I have questions from people who I assume know much more than me, but I generally tend to agree with ML.
How does a genuinely socialist nation come about? How do we abolish wage-labor, commodity production, and how do we avoid the state extracting surplus value from the working class?
Could there have been a truly socialist nation come about in the 1900s?

From what I understand, Marxism-Leninism justifies not abolishing wage-labor or commodity production as necessary for a single nation to survive in a capitalist global economy. Is this accurate?
I’m just trying to learn.

The recent situation with Graham Platner reminded me that stating a person’s bloodthirsty desire to harm others overseas never seems to reach mass attention or raise flags as opposed to smaller domestic issues. It also feels like whenever the imperialist contradiction is brought up against social media libs, you get silence at best.

What is going on here?

So I spent some time researching Glushkov and OGAS, the Idea was to basically use 20,000 computer terminals to replace thousands of GOSPLAN bureaucrats having to manage ten thousand inputs.

And I am thinking, Glushkov warned us that if OGAS wasn't implemented, the cost of bureaucracy would increase by 40 times soon, it didn't increase by 40 times, but it still increased.

So my question is, isn't it smarter if we use terminals and computers instead of thousands of bureaucrats having to manage an ridiculous amount if inputs.

(Also, an Algorithm can constantly set new quotas instead of once every five years) And that's a practical application of "scientific socialism", right?

hey Im just wondering as an american ML how do I combat opportunism in the usa? I have my own ideas on the matter (freeze them out of organization and do thourough vetting on anyone joining the movement) but how to deal with opportunist propagandists etc. sorry for all the questions, im new here.

Personally, I think it's a bit like Star Trek — a post-scarcity society.

I am a software engineer by trade and used to work for a big tech company. Years ago I dreamed of starting a company and creating something awesome while getting rich. Now I feel dirty even thinking about starting a company and charging people for goods. I know it's a little extreme and I'd like to start learning more so I can figure out how I can realistically make a living without contributing to the gross corporate behavior I've seen in the past.

I recently had a conversation with a friend who actually wanted to listen about socialism, we talked and he asked a good faith, very simple question that I thought and kind of new I could answer but didn’t really manage to answer coherently. His question was, “Why should I even strive for change?”. He lives in Iceland for context, a country with a very good welfare system, benefits, barely any poverty or social unrest and he works a job where he has fun and which he enjoys very much. He has access to anything he wants. So from his position (and the one of many more fortunate proletarians, he doesnt own any private property btw) why should he be a socialist if he has everything?

I dont have to be persuaded, I rather want help with answering this question in a good, understandable and coherent way for the future and for the next good faith talks with people around me.

In books like One-Dimensional Man and An Essay on Liberation, Herbert Marcuse argued that the working class in advanced capitalist societies had become too integrated into the system to play the revolutionary role Marx had imagined. Higher living standards, consumer culture, organized labor, political participation, advertising, and mass media had all helped make workers more invested in the existing order.

Because of that, Marcuse began looking elsewhere for the possibility of radical change. He focused on people he described as “outcasts and outsiders,” including racial minorities, the unemployed, radical students, anti-colonial movements, and others who remained in conflict with the established system. He also saw the women’s liberation movement as having revolutionary potential.

Marcuse was part of the Frankfurt School, a Marxist intellectual movement centered on the Institute for Social Research, founded in Frankfurt in 1923. One of its main questions was why the working-class revolution predicted by Marx had failed to happen in advanced Western countries. Its thinkers studied how consumerism, mass media, nationalism, psychology, authoritarianism, and modern institutions helped stabilize capitalist society.

A similar pattern can be seen in the modern left. The focus has shifted from economic class alone to groups defined by race, immigration status, religion, gender, and sexuality. Undocumented immigrants, Muslim communities, and LGBT people are often treated as key marginalized groups whose experiences are used to point to broader inequalities in Western society.

These groups do not always share the same values or political interests. There are obvious tensions, especially between progressive views on sexuality and the more conservative religious beliefs held by many Muslims. Even so, they are often brought together politically through a shared language of discrimination, exclusion, minority rights, and opposition to established institutions.

In that sense, the modern left has partly replaced the old Marxist image of a united industrial working class with a broader coalition of groups seen as socially, culturally, or politically marginalized.

I believe that socialism or marx never was hateful or disrespectful to religion. Though i know that in depth dialectic materialism is detached from spirituality, but marx never claimed to attack peoples spiritual beliefs.

But why is it that, soviet union became an atheist state rather than just a secular state. I was recently reading an article where it says that around 1939, only 200 churches were not destroyed or attacked ; which were 46000 before revolution. Also, things like burning of religious symbols and texts. Now, i understand the logic that church was at that time heavily feudal and had a strong connection with tsarist regime. But it wasn't after the revolution or at least justified all these chaos. Also, not only christian but also islam and jewish beliefs were hurt too.

In China you also need to be an atheist to be in CCP.

But in my country I've seen too many people who are believers and they are as much as communists as you can expect. They aren't those blind superstitious people, but people with very holy and moral values.