this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
613 points (98.9% liked)
Memes
48655 readers
2027 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Of course, you could just talk about "Tax The Rich" or "Bring Back the New Deal" but then how could people know you read Karl Marx?
Only taxing the rich or bringing back the New Deal perpetuates Capitalism, we are talking about Socialism here, not Social Democracy. In that respect, when we analyze AES states, all have a firm understanding of Marxist theory, showing that it indeed has practical merit.
If you want to get started with theory, I keep an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list you can check out if you want.
So?
If the workers have a 25 hour week with universal health care and great pensions who cares if the billionaires have spaceships to Mars?
Considering we are speaking about the US, those safety nets would come from the massive Imperialism the US commits constantly. Workers in the Global South would continue to slave away so workers in the US can live cushy lives.
In a Socialist system, we can end that, but under Capitalism there is no path to deliberately end the practice of Imperialism, as it forms the basis of US foreign policy, and why the US Empire has hundreds of millitary bases around the world.
Or we could be doing asteroid mining and getting raw materials from off-planet.
Marx and Lenin never wrote about that because they both died a century ago.
And we would continue to centralize and give power to fewer and fewer hands, when we could provide much better living standards for all.
You're ignoring the part where I said everyone has a high standard of living.
We don't live in that theoretical fantasy world, and moreover that still does not logically justify allowing a small handful of people to live like gods. I am talking about reality, not a dream you had.
lol!
Look who is talking about dreaming.
Have a nice day and don't hold your breath until the revolution.
Revolution has already happened in quite a few countries, one of them with one of the largest economies and populations on the planet. It's more a matter of time.
So, while we wait for the inevitable revolution, why not bring back the New Deal?
It wouldn't be terrible if it happened, but there's no path to actually making that happen that wouldn't make more sense to go for revolution. Even when congress was more controlled by the Democrats, no such program emerged.
Now you're saying the New Deal never existed?
No, I'm not. The conditions that led to the New Deal are entirely different from the conditions of today, so we must reexamine if such a program could be forced into passing today. I don't believe there's a path to that, unless there is already revolutionary pressure bubbling and risking the entire system.
There's the problem right there. You're ready to throw away any progress because it isn't perfect
You guys saw Ronald Reagan, but couldn't get behind Carter because he wasn't good enough.
Same with Bush and Gore, and Clinton and Trump.
You guys are the biggest friends the Right ever had.
Heck, go back to the 1930s. The Fascists then labeled themselves Anti-Communist and reaped the rewards.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. That's all you have. good intentions.
You can't just pray progress into existence. If this second New Deal has no electoral path to implementation, it doesn't exist, and ergo isn't progress. To the contrary, based on the analysis of our conditions I have done, I think revolution is genuinely more feasible than passing the New Deal again, and moreover a New Deal would not stop Imperialism, we'd need revolution anyways.
Except there was actual progress under Carter, Clinton, and Obama. It wasn't huge, but it was progress. You choosing to ignore it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
You're the one who has gone faith based. You can't give me one actual fact to make me think the USA is anywhere near a Socialist revolution.
And I can point to Blackwater and the other mercenary companies to show that if the Revolution comes, it will be instantly subverted.
There was decay under all of those, though. The US has been getting worse, using a bucket on a sinking tanker will not fix the underlying problems, we need a solution, not another bucket.
As for revolution, it is neither easy nor impossible, but rather difficult and possible. Studying revolution proves this consistently true.
You keep repeating the same thing over and over.
People should not have any health insurance at all until the Revolution comes and makes it perfect.
People should accept tanspeople getting killed until the Revolution.
We shouldn't do anything to improve anything until the revolution.
Like I said, you're the best friend the fascists ever had.
See, that's not what I said, though. I can say that it would be great to have universal healthcare, but that we cannot "pray it into existence," and therefore the question of how we get there is important. Critically, this has been a salient topic for decades, and yet the Democrats have not implemented it, nor does it seem like they would if they had the majority.
Just as important as the ideas themselves is the path to implementing them.
lol! Talk to the 45 million people who are getting Obamacare.
Even Obama called the ACA a 'starter house' but if we listened to you those folks wouldn't have anything.
Gay rights is another example of progress that was made without your Revolution.
Good bye
The ACA was a concession, and is in danger of being whisked away. Same with gay rights. Electoralist strategies are subject to the whims of Capital, not the people.
I've been thinking a lot recently about how to rephrase socialist ideals as capitalist bills for the sake of America.
I want to propose a "Proof of Economic Viability Bill" somewhere if I can find the right influence point.
Basically, financial advisors suggest that people should pay no more than 30% of their income towards living expenses. Knowing that the vast majority of Americans only have income from their primary job, this means that any business should be expected to pay no less than 30% of their income, evenly divided across the entire workforce (cart pusher to CEO), as a "living expense allotment" to prove they can afford to pay their workers enough to live and stay afloat. This will push out companies who are doomed to fail because of a lack of available workforce, allowing more economically viable options to reign king.
Edit to add: you can make this sound a little nicer to the maga crowd by telling them they can reduce wages by doing this. I don't necessarily care that you're paying minimum wage as long as you can afford to put your worker in a home and fill their stomach.
Historically, this just doesn't work, and it even risks supporting PatSoc movements like the American Communist Party (not to be confused with the CPUSA), also known as "MAGA Communism." Essentially Imperialism combined with Communist aesthetics. You need to be honest with people, otherwise they will learn they have been tricked and resent you. Further, this isn't really Socialism, but Capitalism with bigger safety nets.
The problem with policy is that it needs material foundational backing, otherwise it will be walked back if the class in power doesn't like it.
I see your concerns, I really do. Poke around my account and you'll see the other steps that need to come along with these bills which I've suggested around a bit. Basically, I've been asking people and trying to spread some influence to get some real socialism going at the same time
I have too, and I've tried it both ways. Openly being a Communist and explaining clearly and exactly why I hold the views I do has netted me more acceptance and respect. I even made a Marxist-Leninist introductory reading guide, which has netted several new comrades and still gets new upvotes even months after originally posting it.
And I greatly appreciate work like yours. I believe we need to do both. There are people who will be easier to convince if you use those magic words because that's what works for them. There are others who will be easier to convince if use more maga-friendly terms. The important part is that bills like that need to be introduced in the correct way.
It is possible, as an American citizen to draft and propose a bill to your senator with a petition to your fellow man. We need to go convince people, in whichever works for that particular individual, to sign these petitions for bills that will help them. We need to convince them to vote for them in whatever ways will get them to do so. But we need to draft those bills carefully and ensure they get shot down if they get twisted in the chambers.
The "magic words" bit generally isn't true, though. I recommend reading "Brainwashing" followed by Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of "Brainwashing." My strategy entirely changed after reading these, people will not side with you truly if they already license themselves to believe something else. This coincides with the real experience of Communists and other Leftists historically, Liu Shaoqi's How to be a Good Communist talks about maintaining this honesty in dealing with the rest of the Working Class who may not be radicalized yet. This keeps us in touch with their needs and desires, preventing commandism or tailism.
Further, signing petitions and trying to force the ruling parties into action generally doesn't work without millitant labor organizing.
I'll have to look into those. My reasoning behind the "magic words" thing is two-part and quite likely outdated: research and anecdote.
Quick side note before the meat: Also, I appreciate that we're keeping two lines of thought going across these two comment chains. Not a skill I see in others often, but one I enjoy having in my friends for moments like this.
The basis comes from my understanding of how propaganda works, but honestly mostly comes from my memory on the classes in school. Granted, I paid a lot more attention in school than a lot of my peers but I haven't done as much research since then as I should/probably you and other more theory-oriented communists have done so I can probably get schooled a bit. Basically, I like to make use of emotion-provoking terms a lot. In person, I do so by trying to befriend people from across the aisle to observe them and listen to them. They'll use the words that matter to them, "egg/gas prices" or "housing crisis" or whatnot. Then, I find ways that their "team" has hurt the things that matter to them, and I'll go and talk to them about those bills. Usually along the lines of "Hey did you see this? It's got these great benefits for us but those rat bastards snuck in x/y/z" and over the course of a few months I've gotten a good handful to start noticing the pattern (this is where the anecdote comes in).
I've convinced a traditional "good ol boy" from Oklahoma (I learned so many slurs from him in the first few months) in the past to argue for communism against one of his classmates just because he didn't like that classmate at the time. After about 2 years of knowing this guy, he was the type of ally who would stand up and knock a motherfucker out if he heard you say something homophobic in passing. And the best part was that I never even tried for that bit, I only ever tried with economic strategies with him and he figured out the humanitarian aspect on his own
Thanks for the compliments, though you've probably seen by now that I ended the other comment thread, haha. I feel that this one is consolidated enough so I linked it over here.
Either way, I don't actually think you're wrong from a rhetorical point of view, but I do think that you would see more lasting success by being more open, at least online where you aren't in (as much) danger if you're found out. In personal terms, I usually just recommend friends and potential allies to listen to Blowback. It's very effective for radicalizing against the US Empire, and promotes sympathy for AES states and the Global South in general. Online, however, I find that it's better to openly state that I'm a Marxist-Leninist, and explain my views on those grounds.
As a side-note, I do recommend diving into theory if you haven't. The more theory you read, the more effective your arguments can be, and while it isn't a linear scale this has certainly helped me the most.
I've had a lot of negative experiences with some people who are overly theory-oriented (theory is great but you should form opinions on it, not let it dictate them to you) which has definitely pushed me away from reading it. I'm at a point in my life now where I think I could probably start dipping my toes into that without going off the deep end, and this conversation was a particularly good motivator to start doing so. Always more to learn
You might find it fitting to start with Oppose Book Worship, which deals with just the problem of overly-dogmatic comrades that only ever read theory. You must read theory and test it via practice, each informs the other.
I'll also shamlessly plug my own Marxist-Leninist reading list again as it's designed for people to go from knowing no theory to having a solid grasp of the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism, as well as its historical context.
You just described what the minimum wage was supposed to be, and plenty of red blooded American patriots already hate that.
I realize my other comment didn't actually properly answer your concern. You are right about this being the equivalent of minimum wage. However, the meaning of wages have changed since the time when those laws were made. We don't need companies to prove they can pay their people for today, because we have technology that lasts hundreds of years if properly maintained. We need them to prove they are economically viable forever.
You're absolutely right. However, if you use the right magic words you can convince them that it will be good for them. Constituents will be happy because their bills will be guaranteed to be paid by their company, and investors will be happy because they can look at a company and instantly see whether they can make money off it. It just so happens that politicians tend to be into the same things as investors
This is Utopianism, and was practiced by early Socialists like the Owenites. The problem is that such a practice never works. One of Marx's major advancements was in developing Scientific Socialism, which looks at material reality and its trends to see how to better guide them.
I don't disagree with you, in general. This is why I like the two-pronged focus of my plan. I don't wanna just go and propose bills and convince people to be socialists. I've been going around spreading the word of food co-ops and non-profit/expense-sharing apartments (but not the same way that section 8 and whatnot work). You can feel free to poke through my account a bit to see some of that.
If you still find an issue with this line of thinking definitely let me know so I can try to adjust the strategy
Generally, people will agree that good systems are good. The criticism I have is going from A to B, ie how do we get these things into reality, as well as "hiding your real intentions."
For the former, again, the Owenites pitched an idealized model that they had managed to get started, and was working rather well compared to other systems. The problem was that the ruling class never adopted it because it would harm their control and profits for the sake of the whole of society. Marx's analysis led to the development of Scientific Socialism, which has had much more lasting impact and success.
For the latter, it can lead to being seen as sly or manipulative. People can sniff this out pretty well, I believe, and causes them to distrust you. It is better to be open about your intentions.
I still don't disagree with any of your points. I think in the future I could be more on-the-nose about explaining the purposes of the bills and how to actually go about using maga-friendly magic words without actually supporting maga-friendly "magic words" (hopefully that makes as much sense outside of my head lol).
I'm of the belief that good leadership and psychopathic manipulation are nearly identical, it's all about what you actually influence them to do/feel. As such, I believe there is a way to go about using these words effectively, it just takes a certain type of individual to do so and the right circumstances and education to make sure they can do it right
I think my other comment I just wrote here answers this, so I won't repeat myself. Just leaving a comment so anyone who wants to follow this comment chain can see where it goes, if it does.
Yeah, I just replied about the two lines of thought in these chains but this seems like a good convergence point for any readers. Can continue in just that one
Stop using polysyallabic words like "proletariat" when trying to appeal to the American working class who read at a 5th grade level.
Seriously. Like the guy in Severance said. Apologize for the word. It's too long.
No no, you just have to use the right ones that they like. The "magic words" so to speak. Investors really like "economic viability" because it means they can instantly look at a company and see if they can make money off it. Politicians just so happen to be interested in a lot of the same things as investors for some reason.
I go even simpler.
The New Deal.
Make the GOPs explain why we could pay salaries that let one earner support a family of four in 1940 and can't do it today.
It's the opposite, actually.
The people who talk about "tax the rich" or the New Deal don't actually do anything, they are armchair activists who have no real idea of how they would ever accomplish this outside of pretending the Democratic Party, which constantly opposes them and crushes such ideas, is the vehiclr, and the way to make it happen is complaining on the internet.
Communists know that actually addressing our collective problems is a much more difficult task, nothing less than the overthrow of capitalism, something that would need to survive attempts at cooption by liberal power structures like the aforementioned party. So we build from the ground up, educating one another and developing practice so that we can balance growth, education, and having impact through actions. We go to the meetings, we run the meetings, we teach one another, we organize the protests and marches, we build the strategic mutual aid events, we embed with workers' spaces and unions, we embed with and build from within the marginalized so as to be of them. Communist organizing is adding a part-time job on top of your other obligations.
Yes, we should definitely not have something like Sweden or the old New Deal. We should let children grow up in poverty, let old people suffer, and let the planet burn while we sit around discussing Trotsky and the Second International in hopes that the revolution will come.
iirc de La Cruz got less than 100,000 votes.
I think you need to refamiliarize yourself with what I said, as this is not it.
I said something that is the exact opposite of sitting around, actually. Do your best to read a little more carefully before sharing opinions.
And?
Keep on arguing on the interwebs.
Maybe someone will notice.
Maybe.
Do you think you're doing something else?
I do stuff offline.
All you guys ever do is argue. Name one thing you guys have done in America in the last 50 years.