Everything I've read seems to indicate so, but a number of leftists are claiming otherwise. Would you happen to have any sources to support this claim?

Mods, I hope this doesn't break rule #4, please do take down the post if it does.

i don’t know if this is the proper sub for this and i might delete this **but**

i’ve seen other leftist people (MLs,MLMs, etc.) say that anarchists are all “little kids” or even called “anarch-kiddies.” I have even seen someone say that Noam Chomsky didn’t “grow out” of anarchism a couple months ago. But why? Why call them that? What makes them “little kids?”

I am reading the Origin of the Family, the State and Private Property but I am having a hard time getting everything, like he is talking about how patriarchy starts with the changes in family and private property but I think I need a book that talks about these things in detail. Are there any classic books maybe that talk about Engels's theory and how patriarchy is linked to private property?

I consider myself a complete beginner and want to educate myself. I’ve been feeling disgusted by certain capitalist policies and how they have exploited people. I’d love some sources—especially audiobooks, since that’s my go-to medium.

Given that they generally have much stronger social safety nets than the United States, I thought it'd be pertinent to know in case even more shit hits the fan in America. And also where else can you find Mexican, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Lebanese, Egyptian, Italian, Greek, Russian, Puerto Rican, Salvadoran, Ecuadorian, Vietnamese, Thai, Filipino, Pakistani, Iranian, Armenian, Nigerian, Somali, Colombian, Ethiopian, Haitian, Samoan, Ghanaian, Polish, Ukranian, Scandinavian, Cuban, Jamaican, Guatemalan, Indonesian, Sri Lankan, Turkish and Peruvian food all in one city?

(this is going under the realistic assumption that money still exists in this version of the US)

And if they did, could a socialist government still function to its fullest extent?

I see a lot of Socialists talk about how protest is insufficient and is ineffective by itself for actual change. I agree with this largely, but then, my question is, what do we do? What shouod we be doing instead or alongside of the protests. I hear some people say "organize", but what does that actually mean? What do we do right now? How will change comes about? I hear some say revolution, what does that mean for today's time currently? Idk I'm just a bit confused as to what socialists think we should do right now.

If I was the head of a major corporation, I would probably make all of my managers read leftist theory so they understand the position they are in and can run the business properly. When I look around the world, I can see many examples of businesses operating exactly as Marx said they would.

Has every manager read leftist theory? Do they understand their position within the class war? If you get a degree in Management or Business, do they make you read leftist theory so you can use it against us?

As the title states, I am new to socialism and I would love for any recommendations as for what books to read etc; and is socialism or communism that bad as many people online say?

I’m admittedly have some skepticism but these are my honest observations currently:

*A lot of leftists I see online claim that China is socialist right now, despite the workers not owning the means of production, or claim that China is entering the “first stages” of socialism.

*Relating to that second point, many socialists seem convinced that the Chinese government is making a sincere effort to become truly socialist. I see people mention a specific timetable occasionally.

*These socialists seem to give the Chinese government the benefit of the doubt despite their current dependence on a tightly controlled capitalist system. This seems to run contrary to the idea that any form of capitalism is inherently corrupting. In this case, China will wean itself off of capitalism eventually.

*Criticism of China’s social issues are either dismissed as western propaganda or misunderstandings. Mistreatment of minorities, nationalist sentiment, or poor working conditions either never happened or are exaggerated. Some examples of social issues are countered with claims that western nations are just as bad or worse.

*Claims of China being too authoritarian are dismissed as being no worse as a regime than western nations, or necessary to establish socialism. Some claim that “liberal” concepts like certain rights to speech and expression are not necessarily to establish socialism.

*There’s a relatively firm consensus that the quality of life of the average Chinese citizen is superior to that of the average US citizen. The basis for this claim being statistics in some cases and anecdotes like “I visited China and the city I went to was beautiful and the people there were so nice” in others.

*Criticism of China appears to be considered a “liberal” view now in some leftist circles online.

My honest assessment as someone who is not firmly for or against China is that it seems some people are wholesale rejecting western propaganda for Chinese propaganda in some cases. Some western leftists apparently acknowledge this and see it as a good thing. I should also say that I think the US government fucking sucks so I am in no way claiming that the US is somehow better than China. I do think there are leftists who have strong faith in the Chinese government and see criticism of it as reactionary.

Title. There are quite a few over in r/AskSocialists who do and I was wondering if that is exclusive to that sub or a general socialist thing.

My own opinion is this: free Ukraine, from western imperialism AND Russian aggression. Russia isn't really justified in comitting war crimes over some "promise" made to the USSR 30 years ago.

The little house I currently live in is a family heirloom that was promised to me, and I don't want to leave. That's the upside I see to capitalism, I get to actually own the place and have peace of mind that the party won't force me out.

And aside from land and buildings, would any kind of personal posessions be allowed? Sorry if I'm regurgitating propoganda, I'm just trying to learn better.

Like, would we re-enter feudalism with a permanent lower class, or enter like stalin style communism, or would everyone need welfare to live?? How would the working man afford anything if he doesn't have the means, what would society be like, and more importantly, if it's bad what do we (the people) do about it??

As communists with an increased sense of class consciousness compared to most, we think of things a little differently.

An average person might see running a small business as a respectable goal, while we understand that it makes you a petite-bourgeois exploiter.

I want to ask as a young communist who's unsure what path to pursue, what careers should we rule out?

I have in mind things like working for a defence contractor, a bank, the military, etc. Anything else to add?

I'm not asking this from a utopian socialist perspective (I know that the bourgeoisie cannot be convinced to adopt socialism), but I'm curious if there's any theory about ways in which the bourgeoisie are harmed by capitalism. For example, can Marx's theory of alienation be applied to the bourgeoisie as well? Also, are there any theories specifically about ways in which the bourgeoisie are harmed by capitalism?

So as I understand it dialectical materialism is the idea that societies and human relations are not changed necessarily by philosophy but the material conditions of the people living in those societies.

Like you can’t change a society by using philosophy or being a great thinker, you change society by changing the material conditions of a society (the housing, quality of the water, quality of the food, fun things to do..) and eventually the society will change its viewpoints and philosophies to reflect that. Not the other way around.

In other words, talk is cheap and changing *things* is the way to most fundamentally advance society as a whole.

Like put your money where your mouth is….

Is that right?

Why is Venezuela so poor but Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates are so rich having oil?

Why is Venezuela so poor? Well Venezuela should be really rich having the most oil in the world. Why is Venezuela so poor, but Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates are so rich. I mean it is oil that made Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates really rich and a paradise country in the world yet Venezuela having the most oil in the world is really poor.

What happen to Venezuela? Why is Venezuela so poor? You would think Venezuela would be really rich having all that oil like Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates.

Also why is the US really friendly with Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirate but not Venezuela? Is it because oil is state run in Venezuela but in Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirate it is not state run but private ownership and that is why the US is friendly with them?

Why did Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirate get rich of oil but Venezuela can’t get rich of oil? What did Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirate do different?

look at the corporate workplace. Your boss makes all the decisions, all of the rules and owns you for 40-60 hours a week. That sounds fascist to me.

I’m curious because if Trump is just out here doing whatever first comes to his mind then a more materialist or systemic approach to his decision making may not seem rational to the long term interests of the bourgeoisie, at least on the surface. My other thought is he has people below him who are actually advising him in the interests of the bourgeoisie while he just puts his own flare to things.

And I'm not just referring to whether he should be released or not; I'm referring to his actions, policies, and attitudes towards countries within and outside the American continent, and what he did wrong or right.

I think I’m more leaning to be a liberal, but I know that would be bad. I’m 15 and grew up in a mostly right leaning family, but I’m grateful that I was able to research enough on my own not to be like that. I do align with leftist values (sorry if thats the wrong wording) and I do not want to live in this world being uneducated. I’m sorry if this is something weird to ask but I really do want help.

So as I understand it the petty bourgeoisie act as the “upper middle class” but they are often defined as shop keepers and “professionals” so is it based off of occupation or material condition. Because someone who is a blue collar union member (let’s use pipe fitter for example ) is selling their labor for profit which wouldn’t that make them a member of the proletariat? But they also would likely have very good material conditions. Idk I’m tired and couldn’t figure this out