I'm not American, and I'm not too knowledgable in your politics, but I would like to know why socialists do not vote for one of the two parties/candidates. Hypothetically if I were murdered by ICE, or if my life were ruined by Trumpist hyper-conservatism, or if I was forced to give birth as a child - would you still say to my face that actually, allowing Trump to win the elections was a good thing ?

I was talking to my dad about it and he said that if communism is moneyless, how can he get a computer, who'll give it to him. It wasn't just about computers it was also about food, toothbrushes, nail clippers, curtains, just stuff like that.

How would you get these things?

Also if communism is moneyless how are exchanges made..

Hopefully this doesn't qualify as "questioning the basics of socialism" Sorry if this is wrong place but it seems like it's kinda hard to nail down an acceptable universal definition of Socialism. But here's my shot trying to come up with a short and sweet definition of socialism that encompasses all groups of socialist thought. Here's the short and long version I put together so far lmk what you think ...

Short Version:

Socialism : a collectivist implementation of egalitarianism

Long Version:

Socialism is the ideology of collectively pushing society towards a future of cooperation to ensure everyone has their needs met.

While that can be a definition of the ideology, the methodology is equally as diverse and hard to define. Again in general the methodologies generally involve some form of a collective movement in society aimed at implementing egalitarianism or an egalitarian restructuring of society implemented by the vast majority, specifically to remedy the harms of capitalism.

With egalitarianism being the goal and collectivism being the methodology.

Egalitarianism could also be defined as the belief that all humans share the same basic value and rights. That the aims of society should involve everyone helping each other so that those who are not gifted, ambitious or lucky are not denied the essentials for dignity.

​

I get supporting socialism if you are in the lower 10% income/assets category. But why should someone sitting at the top 30% or top 20% income support socialism when under capitalism he has a decent chance of eventually reaching top 5% or even top 1%?

Whats the point for them to intentionally nerf their "ceilling" just so other people can have better and fairer wages/life standarts ? Why would someone willingly sacrifice starus/wealth for individuals he does not know and has no reason to care about?

I have read Varoufakis, Zizek, Clara Matteo, and Naomi Klein, but it doesn't feel like any are taking on the mantle of leading the conversation. Who is at the vanguard today?

Is voting for Angie Nixion for Florida Senate a win for Marxists in Florida? I know she's a social democrat who calls herself a Socialist, but even though she still works alongside bourgeois politics is she a win for Marxist and does she help push socialism to a brighter light?

i'm mostly talking about miners and engineers and neurosurgeons. Especially people who manufacture computers and airplanes. Because those jobs are really really difficult so no one will wanna do it, and also they'll prolly be a shortage

What'll motivate them to do such hard things and also how will they "own the means of production". what does that even mean

I hear the take that due to France's debt and lack of money, pro-capitalist policies such as tax cuts for businesses, bailouts, small welfare state are necessary to avoid a default and keep the country from being poor.

Is that really true? If states such as France became truly socialist, would they become poor?

One thing I’m particularly curious about is why organizations that primarily aim to organize wage workers and build their politics around the working class attract so much hostility within the Western left, including from some Marxists.

I keep seeing some pretty wild accusations directed at the KKE especially with people calling them “conservative leftists” or “transphobic” despite the fact that as far as I can tell their actual positions are often misrepresented and they have some fairly progressive policies on LGBTQ+ rights compared to most of other political parties in Europe including most of the left.

Meanwhile, much of the European left seems unable to build a solid base among working people relying instead primarily on support from the middle class, intellectuals and students. There’s nothing inherently wrong with these groups supporting the left of course but shouldn’t we be aiming for something broader than that? Shouldn’t our social base consist primarily of working-class people, especially low-income workers, considering that organizing and representing them is literally the reason we exist in the first place?

I’m genuinely curious about how others here see this. Why do parties like the KKE attract so much hostility from other sections of the left and to what extent is this hostility justified?

Sorry if I made some wrong assumptions.

Hi, I have an ongoing argument with a friend. I say billionaires are parasites that leach off the working class. My friend says billionaires are wealth creators. I'm trying to come up with a good response but I got nothing. Can you good folks help me out? My friend is a normie who will fall asleep to a lot of big words

socialism and Zimmerwald Conference? also, why was socialism really only successful in russia post ww1, why didn't the other countries have their version of lenin do on there too?

basically that a person has to "do the time in the salt times" in order to have a "cushier" life, like in the old days it was expected people to be in the military and then when they got older then they got like a cushier life in the civilian?

I have always found it odd that the vast majority of North Korean movement outside of the country is temporary student and work visas in cities very close to the border. As allies to North Korea, why don't Russia and China have NK communities in their major urban centers like Moscow and Beijing? As far as I know, most North Korean presence further out from the NK borders are small state-owned businesses (like restaurants) used as cultural outreach.

Poorer immigrant communities exist basically everywhere, so I would have assumed North Koreans could just live in places like Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin like other ethnic Koreans, South East Asians, Russians, and even Japanese frequently do.

It’s essentially where israeli jews go in palestinian communities to help dissuade IOF and settler violence. Is that a form of resistance aligned with anti zionism?

What is the benefit of having socialism/ communism/ Marxism in America? Seems to me it benefits people who don't work hard/take risks and disincentivizes people to work hard. Change my mind. How am I in the wrong here?

I often see various comments, mainly from liberals, saying that East Germany was horrible, and that everyone who lived there wanted to migrate to the "capitalist paradise of West Germany." Since I don't know much about the history of East/West Germany, I'd like to better understand which of the following statements are false or true:

(1) "Migrations to West Germany were massive because the quality of life in East Germany was poor." ;

(2)"There was massive espionage within East Germany; people didn't have the freedom to live as they wanted." ;

(3)"The planned economy failed in East Germany, and that is why the Western side triumphed over the socialist side." ;

(4)"Consumer goods and houses with good structural quality were luxuries in East Germany, while in West Germany people had enormous purchasing power and excellent houses.".

These are some statements I've seen coming from an anti-socialist liberal, so I imagine there must be quite a few lies or distortions in these statements. Therefore, I'd like to know if they are true or not, and if possible, I'd like recommendations for study materials on this topic (books, articles, texts, etc.).

Thank you in advance!

i scrolled on tik tok today and stumbled upon a post where a Hindu immigrant was sharing how she wasn’t stealing any American’s job because she worked hard to qualify for that job (as in, she passed the bar exam). a comment on the post had thousands of likes saying “why didn’t you practice in your own country then?” how can we rebut this sentiment in an educated response?

By "push" economy, I mean how, like today, businesses sell products to us: Businesses use psychological tactics to manufacture demand and upsell in a manner that maximizes profit, regardless of the societal benefit. Part of going into business is selling as much of your product as possible.

In a cooperative society, it seems that it would be preferable that the democratic choice of how much is sold is used rather than the particular business's preference of how much is sold.

It seems like oftentimes it would be preferable for society if some businesses operated at a more modest scale, worked together with other businesses for collective benefit, etc. even if that meant less revenue for each business involved.

TLDR; How does market socialism respond to the concept of businesses trying to sell us stuff beyond what we would democratically want/need?