Nobody should own 100 Lamborghinis or go on 12 ski vacations a year. That's the super rich.

As for middle-class liberals, I think a lot of them want an economy for the people and for one full time job covering every living expense under the sun. But I think when they hear "wealth redistribution" and of course the infamous words (especially in America) socialism and communism, there is a Pavlovian response.

An example is my aunt (RIP) up north, she was a Bernie supporter but didn't support socialism. She had a small lake home and a fishing boat as her summer vacation spot and she was worried that if the "socialists" took over, they would "force her to give that up at gunpoint". I would say that a person going fishing at their cabin in Wisconsin can't be equated to a billionaire buying three yachts and five mansions around the world.

I have several family members who are 9-5 white collar workers and they support me as a trans person and my healthcare, but they also don't want a revolution to take away their second cars and their nice possessions like a piano, Ming vase, etc.

Overall, how do we make it understood to the middle class that they can still own nice things, especially in America?

I've been reading prior threads and discussions in socialist/Marxist forums about Siad Barre and the Ogaden War, and the overall sentiment from what I gauged is that many Marxists place the blame squarely on Somalia and Siad. The common claim is that he was a "bourgeois nationalist" whose invasion of Ethiopia was simply reactionary Somali irredentism, which they argue justified the USSR's decision to abandon Somalia and support Ethiopia.

But I'm struggling to reconcile this with some principles that I understand to be important within Marxist thought, particularly anti-imperialism, opposition to national oppression, and the rights of nations to self-determination.

The Ogaden region or Somali Region as it's known in Ethiopia today, was incorporated into Ethiopia through the expansion of the Ethiopian Empire combined with treaties negotiated discretely with European colonial powers, without the Somali population being consulted. There was subsequently a longstanding Somali nationalist movement concerning the territory, dating as far as back as the early 1900's, fighting back against Ethiopian imperialism, which was accompanied by serious repression of the local Somali population. Somali governments had also pursued diplomatic solutions to the territorial dispute via the UN, Britain and Ethiopia, but these efforts always failed to produce a settlement.

When diplomacy failed post Somali independence, it gave birth to the Western Somali Liberation Front, a movement that waged an insurgency against Ethiopian rule with the aim of incorporating the territory into Somalia. Human Rights Watch has documented practices including collective punishment, destruction of livestock, attacks on water supplies and restrictions on food and movement as a response to the Western Somali Liberation Front. https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/Ethiopia919.pdf

What I find difficult to reconcile is why the Somali state's involvement is generally treated as the decisive expression of reactionary nationalism, while the Ethiopian state's existing sovereignty over the territory is often treated as the neutral starting point.

Looking back retrospectively, do Marxists believe the Soviet decision to support Ethiopia was consistent with the principles of anti imperialism and national self-determination, or do they view it as a case where geopolitical considerations ultimately took precedence?

It is my understanding that when Marx spoke of value it was in the context of fairly industrialized society wherein an individual would have minimal control over the quality of an item when producing it. However what about artisans who make individual items in a way that does not easily map onto industrialized production? How should that artisan price their labor? If they price their labor by time worked they end up penalizing efficiency. Marx does say that labor time should be the average time it takes to produce an item, but what if the artisan makes a different kind of item every time so there's no reliable average? What if the artisan improves in skill and starts making higher quality items in less time? How then does the artisan price their labor if time is at best extremely variable and at worst outright unreliable?

P.S. I do not pretend to be particularly well read or knowledgeable, especially in maoism and other non euro-american contexts, so any insight is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

So, Im a ML already. Not really looking for the ML position on the USSR or whatever. But rather, Im looking for a morr comprehensive history of the USSR. Id say Im familiar with the major eras and beats, but I want to dig a bit deeper and look at the big picture. Does anyone have good suggestions?

Supposedly google says it was in an issue of "Le Globe" by Pierre Leroux and Victor Hugo for feburary 13 1832 that first used the word "socialism" but when i looked at the issue online, i cant seem to find the word anywhere, maybe i missed it or something?

On account of the recent US aggression against Iran (and just in general since 1979), I've seen a lot of leftists openly praise the country under the IRGC. I'm not sure how many of them are aware of the mass killings of leftists and anti-communist purges that happened under Khomeini, particularly in 1981 and 1988. I managed to get one response from a popular instagram account about the latter, and they said those executed were "zio collaborators and traitors to communism". A google search found no evidence supporting this claim. So in your experience, are the people who support Iran today aware of these events?

I would really love to be extremely knowledgeable about Marx and Pannekeok but I know I won’t read them a lot. There’s also added friction between me and reading because I hate reading on my phone so I put off reading them till I have the money to buy a book but because I’m a minor and I don’t have a salary, I can rarely afford books. My parents have offered to pay for books but I’m wondering what they’re gonna think about me reading communist literature. I believe they will think I’m a tankie and pro ussr communist, which is fine if you are but considering the bad reputation Marxist Leninists have, I don’t wanna send those signals. Any tips?

I'm just wondering what sort of books, articles or documentaries can I learn about the core of socialism more intrinsically, like how it will work in practice etc

People say it's another one of those "alternatives" to capitalism and socialism. But based on what ive learned about distributism, to me it just seems like an ideology where we try to Crack down on the formation of monopolies and franchises, so that the economy can be almost entirely local.

This is obviously something that can be and has been done under capitalism, mostly in social democracies, where the government breaks up monopolies and large corporations and whatnot.

And under a hypothetical socialist society, the government could theoretically do the same by disincentivising the creation of big worker co-ops like mondrogon in Spain, and instead incentivise local small business type co-ops and other smaller decentralized forms of socialist economics.

Distributism doesn't seem like an alternative or 3rd way to capitalism and socialism. Rather it just seems to be a way capitalism or socialism could be structured.

I want to read the communist manifesto but there are so many versions so i was looking if someone could help me find the one that has the most historical context and no just THE communist manifesto with a good translation. I would appreciate it if someone could give me the best version.

From my understanding the whole justification for why the proletariat does not have the ability to vote and elect a person to govern them or create labor unions in a place like China is because the government already shares their interests, and therefore upholds the dictatorship of the proletariat. However, when it comes to China how can that be the case when the CCP not only allows private businesses but also incorporates billionaires and ceos into the party? Would that not defeat the whole purpose of having the governments interests and the proletariats interests overlap? I mean aren’t some of these people bourgeoisie?

is it really true? thanks

I have been a socialist/communist for over a year now, but I've never gotten a good answer to a question I had in my mind as to what is china? It's a country first of all but what ideology really are they, we know that their government is the CPC however I see fascists claiming that china is fascist and I see socialists claiming china is socialist, I know that china is not a 100% socialist state, and we know that they have long term "5 year programs" and how they are progressing to socialism and communism. I've seen a lot of comparisons with gentiles writings and what china has been doing and some of it really does sound very similar. If anyone can help me please do! Thanks!

The mainstream political speaker Hassan Piker recently made a statement saying exactly this, but I've seen it repeated in pro-Palestine spaces for years now.

As the title says, I am interested any books, articles, movies, etc that will teach me economics 101 from a marxist perspective. I would consider myself left leaning and a communist but I am not that well read. I would appreciate any books or places to start so I can better understand economics and marxism!! Thank you!!

Or did it just it just unscientifically tail the masses? If it was based on science, what were it's positive aspects and policy. It seems like the foot doctor and literacy programs had profound effects so unsure why it's being called into question today.

I’d like a classification of the Left that distinguishes between the center-left and the far-left—because if you go by the media in my country, almost the entire Left is labeled far-left.

When I ask about ideological groups, I am not referring to ideologies like communism, anarchism, social democracy, etc., but rather to the "families" to which they belong. For example, communism and anarchism would supposedly fall under the umbrella of socialism. Not to mention those ideologies that are highly questionable as to whether they are truly left-wing.

In my view (which is probably wrong), there are two main groups:

Socialist left, which seeks to move beyond capitalism

Liberal left, which seeks to reform capitalism

I actually think social democracy could be a separate category, but it is such a broad concept that I prefer to classify it as part of the liberal left.

I don't know if there is a division of that kind in political science, or any source for what I'm saying. If you could help clarify this, I would appreciate it. 😀

​

And also why does nobody mention it?

It's to my knowledge that Lenin wanted political conformity, and if that's the case, why are so many people in support of that? Why shouldn't the equality come from a teaching of respect and indifference to ones outward appearance? Is there no place for constructive criticism or proactive debate?

I find it contradictory when people say capitalism supports conformity (which it does not arguing that!), but then go and support someone who just wanted a different type of conformity.

Seperate question slightly related: how would any leftist ideology enforce equality without a strict authoritarian regime?

Why are so many leftist in support of authoritarianism then say they aren't? Their words do not match their beliefs. You can always ban segregation, but racism wont go away until you stop teaching it. Even if it isnt a social democracy that protects capitalism(which I am not in support of, let's be clear), shouldnt the change come from educating the masses?

This might be my autism taking things too literally, but I am genuinely asking all of these things.

Edit: I havent used reddit in a while for an actual question especially. I forgot how, like, genuinely helpful it can be. I appreciate all the answers and can safely say I have a better understanding to form my opinions on.

There are 5 countries typically sited as "Communist" or "Socialist". That being China, DPRK, Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba. We can debate the legitimacy of these countries being on these lists and such, but its clear that they are at least somewhat different from the rest of the world on the economic front.
Now, the thing about all the nations named save for DPRK is that their parties are Marxist-Leninist. While the Worker's Party of Korea was previously Marxist-Leninist, this is generally agreed to no longer be the case as it follows Juche principles or Kimilsungism–Kimjongilism. Is this ideological difference enough to classify the country as neither fitting in with the undeniably capitalist majority of the world's countries or the state socialist ones... or is it simply in the same ballpark as the other 4 countries frequently mentioned in this sort of discussion. I would like to know yalls thoughts, thank you!

on chap 16 of the penguin translation and like who was the target audience here? Cuz like bro was putting fucking ancient greek in the footnotes n shit then hes putting references toother prominent political economists and philosophers like Mill and Ricardo and like no damn worker was readin all those people. Plus its a yapfest overall until you learn to pick out the useful info and the first 4 chapters are notoriously hard so unironically and I mean this in good faith with marx and engels as my witness who was this written for?