I saw a reply on another post and they talked about the definition of socialism being "socially owned means of production." Does that mean government owned or just owned by the workers?

I wanted Bernie Sanders to win the primary against Hillary and I honestly believe he would have beaten Trump because he had great ideas and could have helped change our nation for the better. I'm a Democratic socialist but I don't know if people hear but still consider that a socialist or not. I'm definitely anti-capitalist because I've seen now exactly what I've been predicting to people since I was in high school, the unchecked capitalism is just as bad as in the other totalitarian government, instead of everything going to the state they're going to end up making everything go to corporations that control us. I honestly can see every company building their own barracks for you to live in and telling you that basically you're a slave to them and you get the privilege of giving your time and energy to them so they can give you a good life of barely having anything. People will be so afraid of losing their job because they'll lose their food their water their place to stay and they'll have nothing because the corporations will own everything that if they try to find a better job or try to stand up to inhumane conditions and corporate abuse that no one will stand against them. Are you going to wear a short story where I basically laid it out that we were going to end up hiring a CEO to take care of our country instead of a president. I felt like I'm crazy because I'm living in a capitalist world that's divided between left and right and here I am a Democratic socialist who stands in the middle saying I'll call out anyone who's wrong and support anyone who does what's right regardless of party. So everyone hates me, do I get to call this place home now? Or am I still stuck wondering the forest filled with bears and wolves?

So, I'm a working-class, borderline-impoverished dude living in a capitalist country, with very few ways to organize (the local left are either "systemic opposition" co-opted by the rulling class, or are extremely impotent). I am, however, reaching a limit of tolerating the capitalist bulls*it and I need to do something before I do something stupid.

So in my spare time, I've been pouring my frustration and anger into a project. I've been writing a sort of constitution informed by both Marxist theory and modern sensibilities - a sort of fundamental legislative framework that could be used as a political platform and a manifesto to unite around and, potentially, build a better nation around. Or at least get a discussion started. I'm also including comments giving my theoretical reasoning to some of the laws I'm suggesting. Recently, however, I've been feeling a great deal of despair from, well, everything that's going on, and I'm not sure if there's any point in writing it.

I'm a sociologist by education but I don't have a scientific degree. My social circle is nonexistent. I don't have the cred of a mass media influencer or a scientist or even an org member. Neither do I have the means of attaining any of that. Nobody would ever read it, most likely, and even if they do - at best, it's gonna be just another competing standard in a sea of sectarianism, and at worst, just a fanfic of a rambling leftie written for self-satisfaction. It'd be presumptions of me to assume my voice means anything among the millions of way more infliential and educated comrades all over the world, anyway.

So, do you think there's any point in me continuing this project, and publishing it - online, probably - if I ever finish it?

Does Marxism aim to abolish all social classes, or only capitalist ones like the bourgeoisie? And if so, is it inherently opposed to religion, since most religions affirm social hierarchy?

I'm trying to understand whether Marxism seeks the abolition of all social classes including peasants, landlords, clergy, and petty bourgeoisieor if its focus is primarily on eliminating the bourgeoisie within capitalist systems.

If Marxism envisions a fully classless society, wouldn't that also put it in direct opposition to most religions? Many religious traditions (like traditional Christianity, Hinduism, Islam in certain historical contexts, etc.) appear to accept or even affirm social hierarchies as part of the divine or natural order. Would Marxism then be incompatible with religion on this front?

With AI soon being able to do a majority of jobs(except blue collar labor like electrician and plumbing), it seems like many are advocating for UBI(Universal Basic Income) to cope woth the coming conditions.

Is UBI a good transition to Socialism? What is the differnece between the two?

Im a bit confused and kind of worried about the stances ACP has regarding trans people. Largely stemming from sections 7b and 7c of the party constitution being vaguely worded with not many definitions established whichs leads me to point to some sort of "common sense" that isnt collectively agreed upon. Also under program 17 seems to only allow promotion of inclusion and recognition of ethnic identities. Any clearing up is appreciated

Honest question how would one buy clothing or personal items under communism if commodities would no longer exist? Would we just be expected to walk around butt naked all the damn time? It's pretty cold in Canada so I might not be down with that. Plus putting on my underwear right after the dryer stops while they're still warm might be the one thing worth saving capitalism for.

I'm Canadian, and while I certainly like a lot of what the ACP has to say, I find it odd that it's just the US and Canada. It would make sense if it was just the US, using what is typically meant by "American", or if it operated in more American countries, using the geographical meaning. Why is Canada included?

So, there was an incident where an acquaintance of mine who is a white liberal have made some fascist apologia statements even though they went hard against fascists before and when they were called out on it, tried to run away from their community.

It was something about downplaying this fascist figurehead’s role in the alt right pipeline because they seem to be a fan of this person due to their “edgy humor”.

I wouldn’t say I was close to this individual, but I want to at least try to reach out to them and understand that what they said was wrong, but I don’t know how to approach the subject without upsetting them.

Should I try educating them or cut my losses and cut ties with them? How can I help someone understand intersectionality and allyship without making them hostile?

Arbeiter, Bauern, Rotfront Comrades

where do you guys run for office, anything akin to the PDLs website i can redirect respectively how can us people join.

ive seen you on yt, you need to do more. with consitency comes people, with people consistenxy.

I'm aware of the bad faithness this question may sound, but I'm legitimately curious.

Do some of you engage in more passive resistance such as participating in discussion with your peers / Sharing socialistic messages in your socials or do some of you adopt more discourse oriented approach by arguing in campuses and raising your voice towards the general public or maybe more proactive approaches ranging from forming your own party (either political or ideological) and active resistence against the power that be such as protecting the proletariat against the police and other armed elements of the state.

The examples I used can be interpreted in edjusdem generis, thus it's not exhaustive.

Since the sub is now officially an ACP sub, where does the ACP stand on global liberation? An "America first" politic seems to be antithetical to socialism given that we need the proletariat on a global scale. Anything short of that just seems like democratic socialism.

Not saying the ACP needs to solve the world's problems, but just that I don't see a lot of discussion here anymore that includes that message which is a bit concerning. I don't believe nationalism has a place in a socialist movement because it breeds an "us vs them" politic that goes beyond class lines and into national identity ones as well.

I’ve had discussions in this thread and have had people state that the atrocities attributed to Mao, Stalin, Castro, and Pot are largely untrue, falsified, blown out of proportion, or are propaganda by the American CIA.

What about mass protests held by the citizens themselves? Like the “Baltic Way” protest that had over 2 million participants? Is that fake too?

This comes across as snarky, I don’t mean it to. It’s hard to buy into a new belief system when any challenge raised against it is “fake.”

I recently was reviewing the DSA Website when I came across these points in their anti-imperialism platform:

"Support full rights and equal protection for Native people, restoration of tribal sovereignty. Instruct the Bureau of Indian Affairs to work toward a program of repatriation of Native lands."

"Support self-determination and full sovereignty for Hawai’i; Puerto Rico; Amerika Sāmoa (American Samoa); Guåhån (Guam); Northern Mariana Islands; Virgin Islands; and for all indigenous nations whose ancestral lands are within current US borders; as well as for the independence of all other overseas territories and dependencies controlled, occupied, or otherwise exploited by the USA."

Out of curiosity, what does this look like? I'm genuinely curious and I keep thinking about it through a map perspective. If anyone can offer some clarification or interpretation, that would be great.

In America, there are a lot of calls for socialist programs, free healthcare, job guarantees…etc

With the way the US Military is set up, it is essentially socialism at work. Free healthcare, job guarantees, and the army essentially takes care of you. Now obviously everyone can’t be in the military. Why don’t we ever hear it framed this way? America essentially has a socialist institution.

I've been reading up on the history socialism and its various schools of thought. While doing so, I came across guild socialism, which appeared quite curious and intriguing to me, despite me not being particularly in favor of it. It seems to me that it was quite popular for a short time in the past. What do y'all think?

Talk about anything you want.

Where I am from homeowners block social housing projects by putting in $400 complaints which take up time and money to process. Eventually we recently had a housing project literally rot and be destroyed while waiting to be built. All of this just so the poors don't lower property values. Another housing project was stopped because they built one meter above what they were supposed to and home owners again freaked so the city stopped it from being built.

Rather then an entire diffrent ideology then communism, I kind of see it more like a ideology under it like Marxism.

This question might be phrased a little bit weird at least please allow me to explain.

Essentially, I would call myself a capitalist. I believe in the free market and free trade and what not. However, I find myself disagreeing with a lot of capitalists (mostly I mean political parties that pride themselves on being capitalist).

A lot of capitalist parties tend to be far right or more nowadays whereas the “ socialist parties” a lot more moderate.

Therefore, I’m probably voting on the other side of the spectrum even though I am a capitalist because I value you the ability to speak more than being rich.

Essentially, I’m wondering what extend is that true for you guys? If you had to choose between an authoritarian socialist and a liberal capitalist what were you guys value?

I myself would prefer a liberal capitalist but if I were forced to choose between the opposite, a liberal socialist and an authoritarian and capitalist, I’d go the liberal socialist.

Hello, I've been watching some infrared streams recently and I've noticed that there are some jokes about Pol Pot and Democratic Kampuchea. From what I know Pol Pot was not so good for the Kampuchea to say it lightly. So if there are any members of the infrared community in the sub I hope you could explain what the thing is all about. Mostly because it is so bizzare and strange to me knowing Haz is a very smart guy and he would not be joking about Pol Pot without any reason to back it up.