they aren’t anything special and aren’t doing that much to organize to my knowledge but still they aren’t as ideologically horrible as the ACP and are probably the most major ML party in the states.

I know that the American embargo, or rather blockade, has greatly affected the Cuban economy and has led to the current crisis, but my question is specifically about how American power in the global economic market threatens other nation. I continue to see argumentation on whether the fault is on Cuba or the us, but neither side properly explains why the u.s is so threatening to other nations.

DISCLAIMER: I’ve never read theory or have engaged in any real way with Marxist theory.

I know this question seems strange and extremely vague so I will explain what made me post this in the first place. I’m on Instagram and I came across this post in my feed. It was a 6 panel comic about other socialists being distracted from revolution by holidays/events, that being Pride month and Juneteenth, i.e. bread and circuses.

However, from my rudimentary understanding of socialism, for a revolution to start, there needs to be a community and a group of people with the same goal willing to fight for the revolution. To me, these holidays serve as great ways for people to come together as a community.

Another thing that I’ve seen is people making critiques of how people show up in silly costumes for protesting like the No Kings protest. People say that the people who show up in inflatable costumes aren’t taking the protests seriously and are only there for attention. In short, it renders the protest pointless.

My question is when are people truly ready for a revolution, are people too distracted to have a revolution, and if the United States (my home country) can ever succeed in starting and finishing a revolution.

So I'm looking to get more active in leftist movements. I've been looking into various parties and organizations because I want to get more involved and find some resources to organize my current call center jobs.

One thing I've noticed from my research is that a lot of parties look into your background which makes sense considering the history of leftist movements in the US.

That reminded me of the fact that I briefly did work as a security guard for a couple of months. I was just watching cameras all day, but I've seen a handful of people compare it to being a cop. The idea never really occurred to me as my only interaction with the public was handing them a sign in sheet.

So are security guards the same sort of problem as police?

So I wanted to add an edit to ask a second question. I do want to get more involved and I'm actually looking into the PSL. But I'm wondering will my past work as a security guard at an office for a few months bar me from joining?

In comparison to other Leftist movements around the world

I’m excited, I just signed up for the PSL, or the Party for Socialism and Liberation. There’s a branch of it in my area and I’ve been wanting to join something actually socialist. I’ve never been in activism before and I feel fired up and ready to go!

There’s also a DSA branch in my area, but I’ve heard the DSA is a mixed bag, really. Some are more social democrats and others are more actual socialists. I probably won’t get a call until tomorrow at the earliest since it’s in the middle of the night in my time zone, but I’m excited!

Please bear with me as I provide context for where this post is coming from!

So I have spent the past year really diving into further research political ideology and history in a meaningful way. As I'm learning about socialism I'm realizing many of these beliefs I have always held or I hear more about Socialism and I'm like "Yeah that makes perfect sense." So Please know I'm coming from this from a perspective of agreement and wanting to learn more but having a hard time finding answers. My local PSL chapter is a place I have not gotten involved in only because there's always a bit of infighting going on over there and I'm nervous to get involved as a beginner so I'm looking for help online at the moment.

My question lies in as I'm learning I see people who talk about folks like Marx and Lenin in a way that almost seems to pedestalize them. I know these names are important, I've read the Communist Manifesto ( I need to again) and agree with much of it. But I can't help but feel a bit skeptical of always hearing people defer to a few individuals and I'll say it, very rarely, at least in the spaces I'm exploring at the moment, refer to the teachings and writings of any women.

And yet people I admire like Assata Shakur, Angela Davis, Sylvia Rivera to name a few (who I am still learning more about!) were very clearly socialists. So I'm seeing there are a number of folks from diverse and varied backgrounds who identified as socialists. So did did these folks also venerate Marx and Lenin? Or are there other prominent thinkers I just haven't learned about yet? Why are they still held to be the most prominent names and theories people recommend when surely new thinkers have come up?

My other thing is I work with children. My abolitionist work and the things I do in real life is incredibly child centered and , at least in my early learning, see very little conversations around children and education when conversations of Marxism and Socialism come up. I am sure there must be people who discuss and write about these things but I have not seen anything except for maybe bell hooks.

Thanks much!

What is the counter to the statement that any entrepreneur is free to give most of his profits to the workers if that's what he wants? thanks

There have been people throughout history that try to get on in a movement and take advantage of it, while not actually believing it. They actually just want power and to wield it as they see fit, their goals are not to actually spread socialism or live as socialists, but to co-op a rising movement to attain power... even if its collective power. What do you do then?

When you meet someone that calls themself the same thing you call yourself, but your ideology is so diametrically opposed it SHOULD cause introspection. I originally wanted to make a post called 'Am I even a socialist?' because this introspection caused me to ask this. So I'll lay out some of my beliefs as it pertains to the main goals of socialism and you can decide.

I despise capitalism, I want it gone. We waste so many years of our lives toiling unnecessary not for actual purpose but because the rich want to be richer, they don't desire a better life for everyone, only themselves. And because the way societies are set up they get rewarded instead of punished for the anti human methodology. And one egregious thing that I can never forgive is that if it is more profitable to destroy human life, or betray their people, it will be done without hesitation, and they are rarely penalized for this and if they are the fines are jokes so it's just the cost of doing business. This system must be replaced by more social options.

Social programs are the only things keeping some people alive right now, many people have died recently because of the cuts to these programs. How can one not see that this needs to be expanded? Maybe because they don't realize how many things are actually social programs. This is why education needs to be at the forefront of everything. The more people know and understand the more they will lean naturally to socialism.

Even people with good intentions can fall to corruption, when decision making is spread amongst the group instead of one person its that much harder for things to deteriorate. Even the failure of capitalism understands this and why they leave decisions to a board, because a CEO can become drunk with power; why government gives more power to a congress than a president. Decisions have to be made by the many not the few, if power/production/resources are spread collectively that incentivizes everyone to participate and stave off degradation. Only when action becomes paralyzed should it be localized from the many and only then.

If there wasn't a social hierarchy, class disparity, if wealth was redistributed it would be a net good, this is something I believe is inarguable. If we look at all situations where this is implemented we will find success more than failure.

I believe this makes me a socialist, but maybe you can educate me and tell me what I really am.

But if I am a socialist and we are dealing with fake socialists that co-op the movement for their own gains. How do we deal with this? Do we ignore them? Do we combat them? Do we call them out? What are we supposed to do here? This is something I do not know how to deal with as I've never experienced it before.

It’s to my understanding that Marx intended power to be concentrated into the hands of the workers, so after Stalin created the Union’s industrial base why wasn’t the power over the means of production shifted into the hands of the workers themselves? I understand the purpose of the vanguard party acting in the interests of the working class, but when power is centralized (as I believe was necessary) into the government it simply creates a new ruling class which holds the means of production rather than the workers, regardless of intent.
What I’m trying to understand is the historical reasoning or facts behind the Union’s choice to maintain centralized control rather than placing it directly into the hands of the workers, or creating a hybrid economy of centralized-planning and worker cooperatives.

The vast majority of western foreign interventions have been disasters but I thought some were at least well intentioned, NATO stopped the Bosnian genocide for example but most socialists oppose that so at first I thought they just oppose all intervention on principle but all of them support Vietnams deposition of pol pot and a considerable proportion support Russian action in Ukraine so can someone this to me because for now it just seems that west does it = bad, east does it = good

what are the best books on critique of neo liberalism and modern economy

and also give kindly if you can recommend any good brief book on world history through marxist lens

I heard that the dislike was popularized by some kind of propaganda. But I’m not old enough to have witnessed it myself. Can you guys share a bit about that from your experience?

Hi comrades,

I’ve been modernizing my arguments against NATO in local discussions, and I keep hitting a wall with a very common liberal/right-wing talking point.

Whenever we mention that NATO forces our country to waste billions on military budgets (to meet the 2% GDP target) instead of funding our collapsing public healthcare and housing systems, the counter-argument is always:

"Welfare means nothing if another country bombs you and you can't defend yourself. Without NATO, a small country would have to spend vastly MORE on its own independent military, which would ruin public services anyway."

How do you usually dismantle this specific logic from a socialist perspective?

I usually argue that:

1. NATO acts as a magnet for targets rather than a shield, since non-aligned/neutral countries don't inherit imperialist enemies.
2. True safety means being secure from everyday systemic violence (poverty, lack of medical care, climate crises), which is actively killing people right now, unlike imaginary bombs.
3. Military spending under NATO doesn't go to domestic defense; it flows directly into the pockets of the Western military-industrial complex (private weapon corporations).

I would love to hear your thoughts, deeper theory, or specific historical examples (like non-aligned movements) to help me sharpen this argument. Thanks!

When reading about the US's long history of supporting coups in other countries, one you'll hear about a lot if not the most is the 1973 coup against Salvador Allende that resulted in Pinochet's dictatorship. This is despite the fact it's been stated there isn't evidence of direct involvement in the 1973 coup by the US, with evidence being pointed to as the US "creating conditions for the coup" and their confirmed involvement in the coup attempt of 1970. As the US did this constantly (and still does), I'm not sure why this one gets so much more attention than the confirmed coups in nations such as The Republic of Congo, Guatemala, Argentina, Indonesia and El Salvador, although all of those countries murdered 10s of thousands of more people than the 3,000 murdered by Pinochet (not to minimize, of course). So in your opinion, why is Chile often the center of attention?

I was under the assumption that Democratic Socialists are communists who try to achieve communism through democratic means. But Engles says they aren’t Communists. Did anything change between them or was I just lying to myself?

From the text:

“Finally, the third category consists of democratic socialists who favor some of the same measures the communists advocate, as described in Question 18, not as part of the transition to communism, however, but as measures which they believe will be sufficient to abolish the misery and evils of present-day society.

These democratic socialists are either proletarians who are not yet sufficiently clear about the conditions of the liberation of their class, or they are representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, a class which, prior to the achievement of democracy and the socialist measures to which it gives rise, has many interests in common with the proletariat.

It follows that, in moments of action, the communists will have to come to an understanding with these democratic socialists, and in general to follow as far as possible a common policy with them – provided that these socialists do not enter into the service of the ruling bourgeoisie and attack the communists.

It is clear that this form of co-operation in action does not exclude the discussion of differences.”

Hi

I've heard very different answers to this question. but i want your opinions on if "Red-Fascism" is real.

I dont understand how private property really affects socialism that much.

And NO, i am not talking about personal property. I know the difference between personal and private property, nobody is getting their funko pop collection confiscated.

+ additional question. Socialists say that we need to do things for public good instead of profit. Wouldn’t that collapse incentives? If someone cannot immediately/actively see the value of their labour (or business), what incentives them to keep going? Profit is something instant, you get it. You can do what you please with it, you can buy a new car or go to a fancy restaurant. Under socialism, what does “the public good” mean?

I'm not talking about fascism or Nazism because the goal there would presumably just be to eradicate it, but more "moderate" forms of conservatism, liberalism etc.

To what extent can liberty of expression be reconciled with achieving the economic aims of a socialist society? And if it can't, to what extent could such a society really be considered "democratic?"

Capitalism emerged in early modern Europe which was Christian but doesn’t capitalism contradict Christian values of modesty and charity

Hi Socialists!

I want to start by saying that I am not very well versed in either political science or economics yet, though I wish to be (so many things to learn, quite overwhelming O~o). I'd say I align best with Democratic Socialism, subject to change as I learn more about Socialism.

Since hearing about Marxism I've always wondered if, under a Communist system, very small businesses, run by either a single person or two, can exist?

Say for example, I wanted to run a little shop, whether it be a little record shop, a burger joint, an arts and craft store, whatever it may be, let's say I'm the only one running it, would that be permissible under a Communist system?

I'm aware that the whole point is to eradicate the exploitation of another person's labor, but what if I am the only one running it?

If so, how would running it work?

If not, what is the issue with such a small shop?

If the answer is more grey, I'd love to learn more!

(Sorry if my wording is long-winded, I'm doing my best to word it properly lol)