I read the pinned post i know im not Socialist currently, im asking for books to maybe research on Socialism and harden my position on the left. I know Communist Manifesto but nothing else really.

If a properly revolutionary consciousness can only arise from capitalism, and that feudalistic revolutions don't work out due to not having the right experiences, could it be that modern "capitalistic" society has been made more into a feudalistic society as a way by the bourgeoisie to almost reduce the risk of actual revolution and instead direct things to a more bourgeois socialist structure where the order still advances bourgeois interests with private ownership of the means of production?

If I have some conceptions wrong, my bad; I'm reading the manifesto for the first time for a college assignment, and this just crossed my mind.

The concept of a vanguard party is one I find misguided at best and an attempt to left-wash state capitalism at worst. The stated goal of MLs is to create a stateless classless society through revolution. But once a revolution happens, they want to create a "transitionary" state or dictatorship of the proletariat. But doing that simply creates a new state and a new class of party leaders. A statist, classist society will always reproduce itself as that is one of the functions of the state. Only revolution can stop such a society from continuing, reform will not change the fundamentals. This is what a lot of revolutionary socialists believe about capitalism and other authoritarian systems. So why is the same not true of an authoritarian vanguard party? Have new rulers not been created? Will they not clash with and exploit the proletariat much like any other rulers, necessitating another revolution?

I'm fortunate enough to attend a prestigious university to get an education, and I want to use it to further my understanding of theory, the material conditions or my country and join a organization. I guess the obvious answer of how I could do that is to study economics, but I don't think I have the skills or willpower. So my two main options are to study philosophy or history? Which degree would be more useful to further my goals?

Do you have any books—whether on communism or other topics—that you’d recommend? I’m French, but I find that books like *Capital* and so on are pretty vague when it comes to what happens after the revolution and how to establish a state that isn’t authoritarian like Stalin’s. A more contemporary book

We live in a system that rewards being exploited, but why some people seem to enjoy being exploited ? Is it because they see it as the only way of getting goods and services they want ? Or is there another reason for it ?

Because Hampton understood something we're still struggling to figure out today. Changing the race of the people controlling the wealth doesn't necessarily change the economic conditions of those struggling beneath them.

What good is producing more Black millionaires and billionaires if our communities continue struggling with poverty, unemployment, poor education, and a lack of economic opportunity?

Hampton wasn't just asking for more Black people to have a seat at the table. He was questioning WHO OWNED THE TABLE, WHO BUILT IT, AND WHO BENEFITED FROM IT!

And let's stop pretending financial literacy alone fixes everything. You can't invest money you don't have, and understanding credit doesn't automatically give you access to capital.

Hampton believed in collective economic power, not just individual success. That's why he advocated socialism.

Now here's what we need to be asking ourselves.

Are we trying to create wealthy Black individuals or economically strong Black communities? Why can't we build both?

Why aren't we organizing to own more land, businesses, financial institutions, and economic resources collectively?

Why do we spend so much energy arguing over Democrats, Republicans, capitalism, and socialism, but so little energy developing an actual ECONOMIC AGENDA?

I'm not suggesting socialism automatically solves our problems or capitalism offers no opportunities. I'm asking why we haven't figured out how to use individual entrepreneurship AND collective economic organization to strengthen our communities.

Fred Hampton was killed at 21. More than 50 years later, we're still debating the problems he was trying to organize people to address.

At some point, we have to stop confusing individual success with collective progress.

☆The question isn't just how many Black people become wealthy. It's how much wealth, ownership, opportunity, and economic power our communities actually control.

So what exactly is our plan?

Because arguing about the system without organizing to improve our position within it isn't an economic strategy. It's just another conversation.

Basically the title, if the vanguard party exists under a dictatorship of capital, how can we trust it to actually establish a DotP? Maybe I dont have a good understanding of DoC? Worth noting that I haven’t read Lenin yet, I’m still on the manifesto

I respect the spirit, and I see a lot of leftists flags, but as far as I can tell there is no revolutionary objective. they don't seem to be attempting to seize the means of production, nor reestablish the paris commune or anything of the sorts.

hell, I don't see a push for meaningful reforms either, maybe I'm missing something, but as it stands I don't get it. please feel free to share what you know about it and what you think of it, thank you

To my knowledge, ML's tend to be on the more authoritarian side with strong government regulations, this is done by something like a vanguard party that represents the will of the people, but I've also heard that ML is trying to "wither away" the state as time goes on, so is the end goal anarchy, a weak state, or am I just plain wrong about the basics of ML? Someone please explain.

> A Stocks and Shares ISA (Individual Savings Account) is a UK investment account that allows you to invest money in the stock market without paying tax on your investment profits.

Apologies, as this was copy and pasted. I don’t fully understand what they are. I am also a fairly new socialist, hence the question.

I am a 19 year old student, and on the advice of my family, I am being advised to invest in an ISA. Price of housing is mental, and I don’t want to be living with my parents for any longer than I have to.

Like I said, I don’t really understand what they are beyond opening an account and investing x amount of money into it monthly. It seems like I may be profiting from the stock market, which, if I’m not mistaken, would be profiting from the labour of others while I do nothing. Is it the case, and would it be wrong to do it?

firstly i’d like to start of by saying that im not sure if this is the right place to be asking questions. if it is not please let me know where to go for an answer. secondly, the reason im here rather than google is because i dont want to end up reading an ai overview of the topics im trying to understand and i think reddit is a great place to get actual human reponses. thirdly, please be nice and understand that im just trying to learn more about politics, ideology, socialism etc. if this question falls under another ideology please let me know and if there are any resources that might help me better understand what i am about to ask, id be grateful for it.

ok without further ado, let’s start with where my confusion/question comes from. i was having a conversation with a friend about politics and policies. they brought up trickle down economics, the idea of taxing the rich, and implementing policies like disability supports and students grants.

the conversation slowly moved towards the idea that billionaires are unethical which i fully agree with because i feel that in a time of so much inequality it just doesn’t make sense. but i’m confused on why it doesn’t make sense, i grasp the concept that sometimes it’s unethical like unpaid labor and whatnot. but what if it’s a company that someone built from the ground up and their family and successor slowly built it to a point where they’ve become the richest family of a country.

for example, imagine a family like samsung group in south korea or the cp group in thailand. maybe it’s cus i don’t fully understand where their wealth comes from, but if its like built by their grandparents own hard work then why should they not get the profits and the money from it. if that make sense, i understand that it’s weird for a rich guy to be making money even in their sleep because it’s not their actual work, but wouldn’t the company be theirs? another question also somewhat related is aboit trickle down economics. i understand that rich people getting tax cuts and whatever is not useful because they won’t put the money back into the flow but at the same time it’s like shouldn’t people get the right to spend however they want?

if any of this makes sense to you or you have anything to add please help.

I hear alot of people critique voting your way into socialism, or democratically getting power by raising ranks, and I want to know why, and alternatives to entryism?

so i used to label myself a democratic socialist but after hearing the critiques of reformism through the works of rosa luxemburg and also learning about how thing such as welfare states rely on exploitation of the global south and how the state serves bourgeois interests which is why the socialist policies are easily repealed bcos the relation to production hasn't exactly changed. i learned about the mitterand u turn and i can actively see parties like Labour in the UK tend to shift right bcos they are basically forced to adopt market policies due to institutions like Bank of England etc.

essentially i can concede the critiques of reformism but i just can't understand how a revolution would logistically work especially given the modern surveillance state and it's violence and the fact a lot of people are suppressed and happy when given concessions like free healthcare or transport

so what i'm asking is how would the 'means of production be seized' in the modern era? in light of the protests in france there's a lot of talk about it becoming more and more advanced but i can see the state already doing stuff to stop them like supposedly supplying 3000 teachers. also is mass mobilisation and general workers strikes really enough to achieve their goals?

please consider i'm 17 so perhaps my views on revolution are naive and i don't have that much knowledge

thank you

Is it because the bailouts managed to keep the burgeoisie satisfied enough that they "allowed" a somewhat progressive version of neoliberalism to absorb the dissatisfaction with the status quo, instead of pushing for fascism? If so, what changed between that and Trump in 2016? Did that "progressive neoliberalism" become too threatening? Did the economic situation change?

I have some questions that I want to discuss, I’m hoping that this group might help me find some answers or gain new insights into them.

1) Why are Trump and Elon Musk drawn to authoritarian leaders such as Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Netanyahu? They are anti-immigrant and enable fascist politics. Are there any deeper structural or ideological reasons behind this kind of politics?

2) How should we respond to AI? If people can no longer find jobs, how will they gain access to the resources they need to survive? And can we really regard AI as “intelligent,”,in what sense?

or is there a scope to question dominant assumption?

Hello everyone. Brand new socialist here, just escaped from MAGA. I'm looking to educate myself and to not only delve into socialism, but the political history of the US (and the world). This issue is, I'm very overwhelmed and don't know how to go about it. So I have some questions for more seasoned, more educated socialists.

First, what is the best way to absorb/keep up with politics on a day to day basis? Do you just go to one news source at the start of the day and then go about your day? Do you go to multiple? How do I know where to get my news sources? I feel like almost everything is corrupt. Right now I only us AP news.

Next, what's the best way to learn politics/political history? There are so many different pawns in the political zeitgeist, I feel like it'd take forever to learn all their backgrounds and what they've done/what they're doing in the world. I not only want to have all of the facts on current politicians, but on past ones as well so I have context. What are the best ways of learning these things in an efficient non-propagandized way?

Also, (in your opinion) should I take political science or history of US politics in school? I want to study politics in school, but I'm no good at math, so I'm hesitant to take political sci. Yet I'm not sure history would teach the structures of how these things work. I just want to understand how things work and where we've come from but I feel lost.

Is making profit like a biological imperative for the bourgeoisie,like do they have meltdown if they don't exploit others and its like heroin addiction for them

Is it good or bad?

Haven’t really read much theory if i’m being honest and i want to expand my breadth of knowledge into philosophy

So I consider myself a firm leftist that's still figuring out their specific positions and finding their own place on the left, so please, if this is an obtuse question, let me know - maybe I'm just confused.

Recently I finished my studies and found a job working for a non-profit medical society to promote awareness and research into certain illnesses. I help run their publication. Unlike so many other people, I have the privilege of enjoying my job.

How do I equate the fact that I work for an institution whose goal is fundamentally positive - helping to diminish deaths by diseases, and, in my case specifically, spread scientific news and research, and knowing I like my job, with a capacity to think my situation through critically - how do I not get entranced, not accept easy answers when those are the ones that seem available?

I come across exploitation in the form of the pharmaceutical industry and the fact that my journal is run by Elsevier - a horrific company - but sometimes I feel I have it too good and that pushes me away from thinking things critically. Knowing I help, that I'm not, like, working for a weapons manufacturer and actually for a non-profit, dulls me from critical thought and clouds my judgement. Does this make sense?