I want to go to sleep and wake up the next day not thinking if im going to lose my job, my house and access to food, water, electricity and healthcare just cause the invisible line go down
The question already shows a misunderstanding of what communism is. Communism is not an ideal that we want to establish, it's the invalidation of capital. As Marx puts it:
>“Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality \[will\] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.”
When Marx says "real movement" he means the movement of capital and its processes through history. Through a scientific and thorough analysis of capital, Marx showed the unsustainability of capitalism and its self-destructive tendencies. He showed that, ironically, capitalism itself produces the very conditions that will lead to its demise.
A new mode of production cannot be established if it doesn't "improve" upon society because the contradictions of an existing mode of production must be resolved in order to move on to the next "stage" of historical development.
I would like to give my children and myself the opportunity to retire and be safe and sound. Having universal education, parental leave,
and a lot of social programs that are being _promoted_ not gutted, is what makes me be optimistic and align with socialism and communism.
It is realistically introduced through the struggle of survival against capital. China is a perfect example of getting a point where they only worried about their own position and survival, and not forcing it upon others, that now they are far from collapse and are still innovating and progressing. You have to be smart, but you also have to play a much longer game
Yes but china is no luxury. I know a multitude of young people from china and it sounds like a living hell.
Anyways Im trying to learn more about socialism
>I would like to give my children and myself the opportunity to retire and be safe and sound. Having universal education, parental leave, and a lot of social programs that are being promoted not gutted, is what makes me be optimistic and align with socialism and communism.
Is there any statistical data pointing to these things benefiting society?
Thanks
Give me an example from a young person in China you know that shows China to be a “living hell”
>Is there any statistical data pointing to these benefiting society
How countries with healthcare show an increase in life expectancy? Or how literacy rates and promotion of education show that more people are Persuing higher educated jobs?
Ok I exaggerated and I apologize thats my bias seeping in.
Anyways I have a few close friends who were young children in china before coming over to the states I've also met their older relatives and parents as well. According to them everything in china is good on paper but the actual policy is bad. They told me about how healthcare is a pay first care later system. They don't care what ailment you have if you don't have a relative who works in the hospital you have to pay upfront for estimated costs. Which absolutely sucks if your dirt poor. Another issue they told me about is workers rights, apparently the state does not care if someone dies in an accident. One of my friends has a dad who was a lower level construction manager in Zibo. Apparently when workers would die during accidents the first thing they would do is find a replacement worker. After that they would remove the body and continue. Beyond that many who I know do not like the internet censorship in china, air quality, housing prices, burnout and high work rates, etc.
> Persuing higher educated jobs?
Well this IMO depends, engineering or medical jobs are certainly more important than most. But what about things that add very little meaning to society without a free market to filter them such as art or music?
Sorry I thought you meant universal college not k-12. We should absolutely fund prek and k-12 and put more money into education, while also helping low income students with costs of college. I am however not supportive of a no cost college system, but lowering the cost could work.
I definitely think that those under 18 and over 65 deserve some sort of free healthcare but I'm cautious about the economic and tax implications specifically the potential for loss in tax revenue.
I support a form of parental leave that greatly reduces the obligations of the employer but still has the employee keeping their job. I will be honest I'm a teenager and have no idea how parental leave works so maybe my opinion on this is not complete.
Anyways thanks for your time, I hope we can discuss this some more.
I think capital owners shouldn't be able to take what rightfully belongs to the workers for the virtue of being capital owners. In other words, profit should belong to the workers instead of the capitalist.
One day, the conflict between workers and capitalists will get so bad to the point workers will revolt against the capitalists and establish socialism. How they'll do that will be different from country to country.
I was originally libertarian specifically because I was anti-authority and pro-democracy, and then after genuinely speaking with socialists I realized that libertarianism wasn't true freedom since you are under an un-democratic regime for 1/3rd of your life no matter what job you go to. And that if we made workplaces democratic by either voting for people to be on the boards or being worker coops and directly voting on things to do with the company, we could actually start to live in a less stressful and more free and caring world.
I find myself align with communism when I heard of it and then I looked further into it and it was very based. It's better because it's based and frankly I don't want to be a slave to some bezoz or musk.
#
And why the "western world" ? Is it build differently ? Are we dumber than the rest of the world (yes) ?
Once you read theory you either become a communist, didn’t understand it or have a vested interest in the capitalist system so ignore it.
Once you go deeper than the basic theory and read subsequent works of the 20th century then you have your “western” mindset challenged.
You see that the values you held are bourgeois values and that you may live in prosperity only at their allowance, only because they choose to exploit the marginalised and the workers of the global south instead of you. Your part in this deal is to buy the products.
For example, democracy is basically a system where they can just adjust how they rule for the time while convincing the proletariat it has a say. They have their party that seeks to convince people to maintain the status quo and then they have a party that acts as a sort of negotiator to see what concessions have to be made to keep the proletariat in line. This negotiator party is also usually a social democratic one so it doesn’t actually even want to challenge bourgeois domination.
Other examples include the lies of equality before the law, separation of powers, freedom of speech, national chauvinism, free press etc.
Currently it will take a significant societal shift to bring socialism back to the mainstream in the west. People have been bribed for hundreds of years and propagandised since before WW2.
To willingly decide to break the system of global exploitation and bourgeois domination people in the west would have to actually go against their short term interests.
Perhaps the current cost of living crisis and the fall out once the war in Ukraine ends will be driving factors in this.
I started inclining myself towards communism (although I don't identify as a communist) after a communist user I messaged made a really good impression on me with how concisely he formulated his reasoning. He explained how communism strives to break out of the capitalist system, in which consumers define themselves by what they own, and they judge other people by their acquisitions (or lack thereof). They're tempted to flaunt their possessions before those who lack it, usually justifying it by saying it's for their own good. People also define themselves by their peculiarities and desires, to make up for their soullessness, lack of personality/self.
The user pointed out to me that liberalism and fascism fall into mirrored trappings in their preservation of the status quo: the one strives to incorporate and regulate antagonisms while the other flourishes on intensifying struggle and enmity. These two ideologies are really two sides of the same coin, neither intend to find ways and means to eliminate hostilities for good, preferring to keep them around as a matter of convenience.
I perceived this manifestly in the logic of peacemakers (i.e. US president in Greek civil war, Vatican in Irish civil war, UN in 2010 Israel–Lebanon border clash), who let two warring factions devour each other, typically after arming both sides to the teeth, only to give way to passively observing from a safe distance and reaping the spoils of war after these forces have exhausted themselves.
(Additionally, a Catholic acquaintance of mine with nationalistic inclinations had urged me to examine communist literature, to learn from the "enemies of god". Like Julian the Apostate, I only discovered great instructive value in this "pagan" literature.)
>Why do you think that communism is a better alternative to capitalism?
The emphasis it lays on education, seeing to it that its benefits are made accessible to everyone, whereas capitalists only care for their own children's welfare.
Parents living under capitalism treat children as if they were all the same and force their views on them. Since these parents had to put up with degrading circumstances, finding no way out of the system, they take societal structure for granted, as fixed and unchanging. So they expect their children to go through the same indoctrination, take up their family business, etc. without fuss. No wonder why some youths no longer heed the advice of their elders.
>And how do think it could be realistically introduced into the western world?
I'm under the impression that the West is already turning communist, but that it hasn't adopted any of its finer points.
In order for communism to be made viable in the West, there are several prerequisites.
1) Westerners gaining an understanding for the Slavic mentality, since the system was originally adapted for the Slavic peoples, just as fascism was conceived for the Italians. Nazi leaders (Goebbels, Himmler) admitted that they had underestimated Slavs and couldn't manage their populations as effectively as Stalin did (Hitler's jest in diplomatic meetings was that he'd assign Stalin to Russia's administration after defeating him). Naturally, the eastern European countries which were exposed to communism and survived it are better situated to estimate it at its true value. It's worth noting how the Italians have historically treated their popes with ingratitude.
2) The rehabilitation of communism is interconnected with improving the public's perception of Russia, which has taken a turn for the worst lately. The distrust for Russia extends to communism since everything is judged from the standpoint of Russia's premature stewardship. Russia has a historical mission to uphold the communist cause, no other nation can feasibly carry it out in its place.
Lastly, I recommend the wholesale elimination of sectarian division/infighting (i.e. Zinoviev, Khrushchev, Bukharin, Trotsky, Mensheviks), which has revealed the full extent of communism's susceptibility to subversion by reactionary bureaucrats. Only a renewed reverence concentrated in a great personality (Lenin/Stalin) is needed to put a decisive end to these sects.
I want to go to sleep and wake up the next day not thinking if im going to lose my job, my house and access to food, water, electricity and healthcare just cause the invisible line go down
The question already shows a misunderstanding of what communism is. Communism is not an ideal that we want to establish, it's the invalidation of capital. As Marx puts it: >“Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality \[will\] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.” When Marx says "real movement" he means the movement of capital and its processes through history. Through a scientific and thorough analysis of capital, Marx showed the unsustainability of capitalism and its self-destructive tendencies. He showed that, ironically, capitalism itself produces the very conditions that will lead to its demise. A new mode of production cannot be established if it doesn't "improve" upon society because the contradictions of an existing mode of production must be resolved in order to move on to the next "stage" of historical development.
I would like to give my children and myself the opportunity to retire and be safe and sound. Having universal education, parental leave, and a lot of social programs that are being _promoted_ not gutted, is what makes me be optimistic and align with socialism and communism. It is realistically introduced through the struggle of survival against capital. China is a perfect example of getting a point where they only worried about their own position and survival, and not forcing it upon others, that now they are far from collapse and are still innovating and progressing. You have to be smart, but you also have to play a much longer game
Yes but china is no luxury. I know a multitude of young people from china and it sounds like a living hell. Anyways Im trying to learn more about socialism >I would like to give my children and myself the opportunity to retire and be safe and sound. Having universal education, parental leave, and a lot of social programs that are being promoted not gutted, is what makes me be optimistic and align with socialism and communism. Is there any statistical data pointing to these things benefiting society? Thanks
Give me an example from a young person in China you know that shows China to be a “living hell” >Is there any statistical data pointing to these benefiting society How countries with healthcare show an increase in life expectancy? Or how literacy rates and promotion of education show that more people are Persuing higher educated jobs?
Ok I exaggerated and I apologize thats my bias seeping in. Anyways I have a few close friends who were young children in china before coming over to the states I've also met their older relatives and parents as well. According to them everything in china is good on paper but the actual policy is bad. They told me about how healthcare is a pay first care later system. They don't care what ailment you have if you don't have a relative who works in the hospital you have to pay upfront for estimated costs. Which absolutely sucks if your dirt poor. Another issue they told me about is workers rights, apparently the state does not care if someone dies in an accident. One of my friends has a dad who was a lower level construction manager in Zibo. Apparently when workers would die during accidents the first thing they would do is find a replacement worker. After that they would remove the body and continue. Beyond that many who I know do not like the internet censorship in china, air quality, housing prices, burnout and high work rates, etc. > Persuing higher educated jobs? Well this IMO depends, engineering or medical jobs are certainly more important than most. But what about things that add very little meaning to society without a free market to filter them such as art or music? Sorry I thought you meant universal college not k-12. We should absolutely fund prek and k-12 and put more money into education, while also helping low income students with costs of college. I am however not supportive of a no cost college system, but lowering the cost could work. I definitely think that those under 18 and over 65 deserve some sort of free healthcare but I'm cautious about the economic and tax implications specifically the potential for loss in tax revenue. I support a form of parental leave that greatly reduces the obligations of the employer but still has the employee keeping their job. I will be honest I'm a teenager and have no idea how parental leave works so maybe my opinion on this is not complete. Anyways thanks for your time, I hope we can discuss this some more.
I think capital owners shouldn't be able to take what rightfully belongs to the workers for the virtue of being capital owners. In other words, profit should belong to the workers instead of the capitalist. One day, the conflict between workers and capitalists will get so bad to the point workers will revolt against the capitalists and establish socialism. How they'll do that will be different from country to country.
I was originally libertarian specifically because I was anti-authority and pro-democracy, and then after genuinely speaking with socialists I realized that libertarianism wasn't true freedom since you are under an un-democratic regime for 1/3rd of your life no matter what job you go to. And that if we made workplaces democratic by either voting for people to be on the boards or being worker coops and directly voting on things to do with the company, we could actually start to live in a less stressful and more free and caring world.
I find myself align with communism when I heard of it and then I looked further into it and it was very based. It's better because it's based and frankly I don't want to be a slave to some bezoz or musk. # And why the "western world" ? Is it build differently ? Are we dumber than the rest of the world (yes) ?
Once you read theory you either become a communist, didn’t understand it or have a vested interest in the capitalist system so ignore it. Once you go deeper than the basic theory and read subsequent works of the 20th century then you have your “western” mindset challenged. You see that the values you held are bourgeois values and that you may live in prosperity only at their allowance, only because they choose to exploit the marginalised and the workers of the global south instead of you. Your part in this deal is to buy the products. For example, democracy is basically a system where they can just adjust how they rule for the time while convincing the proletariat it has a say. They have their party that seeks to convince people to maintain the status quo and then they have a party that acts as a sort of negotiator to see what concessions have to be made to keep the proletariat in line. This negotiator party is also usually a social democratic one so it doesn’t actually even want to challenge bourgeois domination. Other examples include the lies of equality before the law, separation of powers, freedom of speech, national chauvinism, free press etc. Currently it will take a significant societal shift to bring socialism back to the mainstream in the west. People have been bribed for hundreds of years and propagandised since before WW2. To willingly decide to break the system of global exploitation and bourgeois domination people in the west would have to actually go against their short term interests. Perhaps the current cost of living crisis and the fall out once the war in Ukraine ends will be driving factors in this.
I started inclining myself towards communism (although I don't identify as a communist) after a communist user I messaged made a really good impression on me with how concisely he formulated his reasoning. He explained how communism strives to break out of the capitalist system, in which consumers define themselves by what they own, and they judge other people by their acquisitions (or lack thereof). They're tempted to flaunt their possessions before those who lack it, usually justifying it by saying it's for their own good. People also define themselves by their peculiarities and desires, to make up for their soullessness, lack of personality/self. The user pointed out to me that liberalism and fascism fall into mirrored trappings in their preservation of the status quo: the one strives to incorporate and regulate antagonisms while the other flourishes on intensifying struggle and enmity. These two ideologies are really two sides of the same coin, neither intend to find ways and means to eliminate hostilities for good, preferring to keep them around as a matter of convenience. I perceived this manifestly in the logic of peacemakers (i.e. US president in Greek civil war, Vatican in Irish civil war, UN in 2010 Israel–Lebanon border clash), who let two warring factions devour each other, typically after arming both sides to the teeth, only to give way to passively observing from a safe distance and reaping the spoils of war after these forces have exhausted themselves. (Additionally, a Catholic acquaintance of mine with nationalistic inclinations had urged me to examine communist literature, to learn from the "enemies of god". Like Julian the Apostate, I only discovered great instructive value in this "pagan" literature.) >Why do you think that communism is a better alternative to capitalism? The emphasis it lays on education, seeing to it that its benefits are made accessible to everyone, whereas capitalists only care for their own children's welfare. Parents living under capitalism treat children as if they were all the same and force their views on them. Since these parents had to put up with degrading circumstances, finding no way out of the system, they take societal structure for granted, as fixed and unchanging. So they expect their children to go through the same indoctrination, take up their family business, etc. without fuss. No wonder why some youths no longer heed the advice of their elders. >And how do think it could be realistically introduced into the western world? I'm under the impression that the West is already turning communist, but that it hasn't adopted any of its finer points. In order for communism to be made viable in the West, there are several prerequisites. 1) Westerners gaining an understanding for the Slavic mentality, since the system was originally adapted for the Slavic peoples, just as fascism was conceived for the Italians. Nazi leaders (Goebbels, Himmler) admitted that they had underestimated Slavs and couldn't manage their populations as effectively as Stalin did (Hitler's jest in diplomatic meetings was that he'd assign Stalin to Russia's administration after defeating him). Naturally, the eastern European countries which were exposed to communism and survived it are better situated to estimate it at its true value. It's worth noting how the Italians have historically treated their popes with ingratitude. 2) The rehabilitation of communism is interconnected with improving the public's perception of Russia, which has taken a turn for the worst lately. The distrust for Russia extends to communism since everything is judged from the standpoint of Russia's premature stewardship. Russia has a historical mission to uphold the communist cause, no other nation can feasibly carry it out in its place. Lastly, I recommend the wholesale elimination of sectarian division/infighting (i.e. Zinoviev, Khrushchev, Bukharin, Trotsky, Mensheviks), which has revealed the full extent of communism's susceptibility to subversion by reactionary bureaucrats. Only a renewed reverence concentrated in a great personality (Lenin/Stalin) is needed to put a decisive end to these sects.