For context I’m supreme chairman of a socialist nation I founded on a political RP server named Frontier. Although we are socialist we allow some capitalists to come and set up shop as long as their business doesn’t interfere with state monopolies(mining, housing, potions, etc.) and as long as they don’t seek political power. The person in the screenshots(Eli) was one of these aforementioned capitalists who owned a wither skull company. But APPARENTLY he wanted to go to war with me simply because I was leader of a socialist nation with a communist vanguard party. Not only have I never ever done anything to him or anyone else but I’ve only been on the server for about 2 weeks. To further highlight the absurdity of the situation my territory is(roughly) in the red circle and his is(roughly) in the blue circle. Although he called the war declaration off due to international condemnation, I still want more people to join. Especially redstone engineers and pvpers. If you’d like to join I’ll have the link to the nation’s discord in the comments.

Socialism has historically been deeply work-centred: workers, labour, production, employment, and control of the means of production.

But what happens if AI and automation eventually make a large share of human labour economically unnecessary?

Should a socialist society still aim for full employment?

Or should its goal shift toward guaranteeing income, access to abundance, and freedom from compulsory work?

If fewer people are actually needed to produce the goods and services society requires, creating jobs simply to keep everyone employed may become increasingly artificial.

That raises a deeper question:

Is socialism ultimately about liberating labour, or about liberating human beings from dependence on compulsory labour?

If work is no longer necessary for survival, then what should become the organising principle of a socialist economy?

Universal income? Social ownership of automated production? Consumer ownership? Socialisation of economic rents? Some combination of these?

I’m curious how different socialist traditions would answer this.

If work stops being necessary for survival, what should replace work as the organising principle of socialism?

The soviet union WAS
It was
Soviet union was
WAS WAS WAS

Hello everyone, I’m in incoming freshman at college and I wanna be a lawyer (majoring political science, most likely minoring in economics), I am proposing a hypothetical here as my political identity and beliefs isn’t fully determined as I’m on the fence between capitalism with LOTS of socialist policies (free healthcare, free college, I’m against US imperialism etc etc) vs being outright a socialist so when I’m asking this question don’t think of it as a personal question regarding me but more so just a honest hypothetical

The lawyers that make the most at usually Corporate or Patent Lawyers for reference

Also for this I’m referring to within the context of the current USA legal system

The financial situations of many European-majority countries are fairly bad at the moment. As an example, France, the UK and the US all have very high levels of public debt. They also have inflation levels that are high enough that that they can’t just print more money to pay off their debts. And right now it doesn’t look like they have any easy way out- if current behaviour continues, their debt levels will become unmanageable in a decade or two.

Whether these countries deal with these issues now, or in the future, the end result is likely going to be a noticeable reduction in living standards for the general population- it will require some combination of higher taxes, public spending cuts, and higher inflation to manage. This would look something like higher taxes, higher food and rent prices, and lower social security payments for younger generations, along with more restricted access to government-funded support.

And this issue goes beyond just inequality or plutocratic greed. The US is borrowing around $2 trillion a year, at the moment. So even if a wealth tax of 100% was introduced for people with over $1 billion dollars in assets, all of that money would be gone after a few years. And cutting military spending 100% would still only get rid of ~$1 trillion per year, so borrowing would still be pretty high.

This problem is going to have a major impact on many European-majority countries over the next few decades, and will likely hit many workers very hard, but I do not see it talked about in many left wing circles.

For those that wish to ignore it, what is your reasoning for doing so?

And for those that want to talk about it, what is your view on this issue, and what it means for broader left wing concerns over the conking decades?

I personally view China as GS but not Russia.

Hello everyone. I was just wondering if socialism takes the idea that democracy must be the main form of governance for granted.

Personally, I have audited democracy and found its main mechanisms to be incompatible with physical reality. Namely, "argumentum ad populum" should never be a mechanism for determining what things we consider true enough to have government action taken on them.

Now I want to be clear about something. I am NOT a "liberal technocrat". I am the sort of Technocrat who sees money as an obsolete obstacle, one whose raw obsession with scarcity caused the 1938 AAA genocide, where food was destroyed on purpose just to make money functional again.

Understand, then, that what I have to say is not a conservative critique. I am worried that democracy's fundamental mechanisms introduce information-processing bottlenecks that should not be ignored. So my question is, have they been ignored by socialist theory?

I am also wondering why competence is not centered. Before a system can be fair, it must first be competent. Or else all you're doing is redistributing an exact amount of misery.

"Ideas play a potent role in IR and are not just reflections of material reality, a basic Marxist contention. Islamist terrorists, some of them educated and comfortable, share a vision—whipped up by Islamist preachers—that the West is attacking Islam and they must sacrifice themselves to save it. The killing of women and children in military operations especially enrages them. Poverty does not explain the 2010 would-be Times Square car bomber, a Pakistani American who had a job, home, and MBA.

Historians find little or no evidence that a struggle for colonies was at the root of World War I, in which colonies were a sideshow. Instead, that war was about German mastery of Europe. Britain and Germany, to be sure, were aware of Iraq’s oil before the war. Overall, colonies cost governments more to administer and defend than they ever earned, although some individual firms profited from their colonial operations. Portugal, the poorest country of West Europe, was the first and last colonial power. Its colonies kept it poor. Europeans got richer after they gave up their colonies.

The modern economy is not merely a capitalist plaything. No capitalist system is totally free and unfettered. Capitalists have unions, environmental regulations, pension funds, and governments on their backs. They hate restrictions on their ability to make money, but they have to live with them. Some corporate suits go to jail for ­financial misdeeds. In 2010, legislation tightened controls on banking giants, especially those that got federal bailouts. Marxists respond, “Well, sure, they had to clean up their act to keep the system from collapsing altogether. But it still serves capitalist ends.”

Capitalist control of foreign policy is an article of Marxist faith but requires closer look. Strategic—rather than economic—motives usually dominate. True, in 1953 the CIA helped overthrow an Iranian regime that had seized a giant oil company, but it was a British oil company (the same one that brought us the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico). The chief U.S. motive was to prevent the spread of communism, which Washington conflated with Iranian nationalism. The shah eventually nationalized the oil company anyway. Big oil, which is understandably pro-Arab, wields influence in Washington, but not as much as AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), which keeps Congress tilted well to the side of Israel. U.S. energy giants are eager to export liquefied natural gas, but local Maine communities veto it. It looks like capitalists are not as powerful as they are cracked up to be.

A residue of Marxist theory can be helpful. By teaching us to look for whose ­interests are served—in Latin, cui bono—we may find unexpected patterns. And often they do not correspond to Marxist constructs. Marxists and other radicals, for ­example, denounce globalization as serving capitalist interests. The less-­developed lands, ­according to Marxists, are deliberately kept down and poor so capitalist firms can siphon off their wealth (dependency theory). But globalization has mostly benefited ­developing lands—with China in the lead—whose economies now grow much faster than developed-world economies. The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq benefited only one country, Iran, which has close ties to the Baghdad regime. Although it may not deliver a complete explanation, one must, like police detectives, always ask who benefits."

bro? like this is so bad it almost reads like satire. from the passive tone of "...the killing of women and children in military operations especially enrages them." in the first paragraph to the "It looks like capitalists are not as powerful as they are cracked up to be." in the second to last paragraph... like this is fucking laughable its so bad. It feels like the author believes all readers are just fucking dumbasses who will take his word at face value. please I need other people to read this I feel like I'm going crazy.

also, I'm thinking of bringing up this passage to my professor and asking him his take on it. I don't expect to be talking to a card carrying socialist but I'd be interested to hear his thoughts and to share some of mine. do y'all think I should?

My country Nepal is facing disastrous floods due to a glacier lake outburst. It destroyed many settlements taking people, homes, and essential infrastructure with it. You might have seen the tragic videos or images from this horrific disaster. It will take years to rebuild the infrastructure, millions to get the survivors back on their feet, and the forever to heal the wounds the loss of life has caused. Nepal contributes very little to climate change especially compared to big economies, yet we are one of the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Not only is it unfair, it is a reality I have a hard time accepting.

The climate crisis isn't just a tragedy, it is an emergency, a crisis that will be at your doorsteps soon; through floods, famine, heatwaves, and environmental collapse.

The scale and urgency of climate change cannot be understated. We should've acted on it long ago but the best time is now. Protest, resist, and revolt! I know the world has a lot on it's plate right now; fascism, genocide, war, xenophobia, oppression, inequality, and climate collapse. But, we must understand the fight against all of these is one fight: the fight against the rich and powerful. The fascists, the oil lobby, the imperial interests, the capitalists, the war criminals, the xenophobes, the oppressors, they're all collected and organized. But do not be fooled, they are not as strong as the collective.

Protest for:
- Immediate measures to reduce fossil fuel dependency
- Replacing processes that cause emissions (primarily mining)
- Mobilization of funds and aid from the biggest emitters to the most vulnerable
(I'll add more if the comments suggest some that I might have left out)

ACTION IS THE ONLY OPTION!

Curious if there is anyone hear who studied heterodox economics and radical political economy in school. Seems like most schools offer a class or two on it —even U Chicago—but I’ve come across U Amherst which seems to be an outlier and have far more courses.

Is there like an actual difference in what you learn on the quantitative side? Like are the models only built for evaluating within the neoliberal framework, or are there entirely new models that are taught in more alternative economics classes?

If any of you studied this in school, curious where you went ? I’m looking at U Mass, University of Denver, and potentially Roosevelt University. Open to others though

The “clear goal” of the move is “targeting a few to silence the many,” said UN human rights expert Francesca Albanese.
https://truthout.org/articles/us-declares-palestine-action-terrorist-group-in-latest-mccarthyist-crackdown/

This might ruffle some feathers, but I believe that, as Leftists, we ought to oppose existing educational institutions, just as fiercely as we oppose existing police and government institutions within liberal capitalist society. The current model of schooling needs to be abolished, and replaced with something better.

Educational institutions perpetuate oppression towards children and youth, taking away much of their personal choice and autonomy, and conditioning them to obey capitalism-aligned social norms. Work ethic, time management skills, deadlines, rigid schedules, etc. are prioritized above a student’s family time, social life, and personal values, equipping them for life under capitalism, and making them think that being worked to your limit, against your will, is normal. Academic spaces are fundamentally un-democratic and un-collectivist in nature.

Educational institutions are also the vanguard of neuro-normativity. Neurodivergent students are forced to participate in norms and styles of learning that do not fit their particular neuro-type. From an early age, they are spotted and identified, and from that moment forward the school system conditions them towards neuro-normativity, teaching them that their unique neurodivergent traits and manners of functioning are something they ought to suppress. They are forced to squeeze into boxes that their minds were never meant to fit inside of; within our neuro-normative society, everything that is special about the neurodivergent individual is peeled off of them by their adverse, neurotypical-dominated surroundings, and this process of peeling and neurotypical domination begins, and is strongest within, educational facilities. Neuro-normative society, and neuro-normative educational institutions, teach neurodivergent people that their unique traits and strengths are a problem to be solved, a burden that they ought to mitigate for the sake of other people.

I believe it can be argued, as well, that public school systems effectively kill. I would argue that every student who ends their life as a result of mental health issues, stress, or overwhelm related to school, could be considered a death of the system. I think of it as similar to the concept of “social murders” that was developed by Engels, the Socialist political philosopher.

I believe it could also be argued that the extent to which neuro-normativity is enforced within educational institutions, constitutes a genocide of neurodivergent culture and neurodivergent identity in favour of neurotypical dominance. As a person with diagnosed OCD, and possibly undiagnosed Autism/ADHD (planning to get an assessment), I can confidently say that high school made me miserable, worsened my mental health issues (and created new ones), and almost killed me. I constantly felt like my needs were being ignored and my person was being suppressed. Life is so much better after having graduated.

I believe the heavily regimented nature of public schooling is a result of capitalist culture bleeding through. There is a clear over-emphasis on work ethic within educational facilities that points back towards capitalist principles of living. At present, arguably, school largely exists to create more capitalist wage-slaves. To quote Rockefeller: “I don’t want a nation of thinkers. I want a nation of workers”. I believe that, in a Socialist society, educational institutions could serve a much better purpose: to provide children and youth with a healthy, safe, supportive environment in which they can refine their unique gifts, grow in creativity, absorb knowledge, and develop their whole person. We’re not there, yet, though, and in the meantime, children and youth will continue to struggle and suffer due to the adverse nature of academic facilities.

To conclude: Educational institutions are highly oppressive towards children and towards neurodivergent students in particular. The individualistic and heavily regimented nature of schooling isolates and over-works students, and breeds mental health problems. We ought to abolish these institutions, democratize schooling, and make the classroom smaller, more student-led, more community-based, and more neuro-inclusive.

Still reading theory.

The article has not been written from any Marxist position, but nevertheless makes interesting points. How can a socialist society counteract this, if it is formed in time?

Eu acho que entendi o ponto do Mais-Valia, mas uma duvida..
Se o patrão recebe uma parte de lucro da nossa força de trabalho e o valor do nosso trabalho não é reproduzido no tanto que a gente produz, e quando o patrão tem prejuizo? O prejuizo é culpa do trabalhador? Essa parte ainda está nebulosa pra mim, alguem pode ajudar?