socialism?

In the days to come, we will all be reduced to mobs and *miskins* in this age of the triple catastrophe: AI, climate change and economic collapse.

We will roam in swarms, scattering in every direction, precarious, unwanted, vulgar, out of place, unclaimed and unruly.

Meanwhile, centralised executive power and the tech nawabs, armed with their mechanised might, will dwell impassively in Shaddad’s gated paradise.

We will remain outside, stranded in the merciless Sahara of data centres and the metallic entanglements of technological capital. In a desolate Karbala. In an impenetrable, inhospitable prison.

They will allocate human thought and neural capacities. They will distribute the accumulated memories of human civilisation and its entire wealth of thought according to their own needs. Our muscles, intelligence, mobility, labour and practical abilities will all become subject to this same regime of neural allocation.

The new form of power, then, will be **neural sovereignty**: sovereignty over intelligence and military might.

And we will inherit neural servitude.

Servitude or marginality?

Living-dead zombies or factory-farmed chickens?

\[Pose a question in terms of either/or, and people assume AI wrote it. Write in proper English, and they suspect AI. The machine-assisted writing cheat seems forever on the run, while people chase after him with sticks, determined to catch him.\]

To what extent will this entanglement incorporate us—subsume us—and to what extent will it exclude, reject, discard, or annihilate us?

What will become of our minds? Melancholy or anxiety? Which affect will come to dominate? ADHD? Executive dysfunction? The procrastination–depression loop?

Perhaps what comes to dominate will be something even more pervasive than melancholy: **distraction**.

Melancholy is the condition in which we find ourselves severed from the desire of the Other. But in the age of distraction, we will become so impoverished in our capacity to desire that we will no longer be able to give form even to desire itself, or to the void. We will wander aimlessly, vacant-eyed and grotesque, staring blankly at the world.

Through a Marxist analysis, what is the origin of the many forms of oppression that exist (sexism, racism, LGBTQphobia, ableism, religious intolerance, xenophobia, etc.)? I'm looking for practical examples, and maybe sources on where to read about these issues. Thanks in advance.

Specifically when they make metaphysical claims about human nature and power. Some liberal I know genuinely believes bs along the lines of "absolute power corrupts absolutely" and doesn't say much other than other idealist metaphysical claims about human nature being lazy, and reluctant to stop "charismatic despots". Their only material evidence is "look at history, empires rise and fall" without being specific. Mine you, I read way more history, which they know, but are smug about it because of committing the burden of proof fallacy.

The National People's Congress isn't solely made up of members of the CCP but they're also not opposition parties so what's their purpose exactly?

A lot of Americans, especially young people on both the left and the right, complain that Israel occupies our country. However, as I'm sure many of you are already aware, if anything Israel is a major vassal state for Washington to conduct military operations, diplomacy, and making Israel basically doing all the hand work for us.

However, cracks in the classical alliance is breaking. The youth has grown to be extremely resentful against Israel, and it's likely protest and opposition against the Israeli government will keep being discussed at length.

This puts US politicians in an awkward position. For the US, Israel is an extremely valuable asset for the money we give it.

However, as boomers start to die and the alliance is becoming increasingly unsustainable, and aid is being reduced, how will Israel's economy look? What is the Middle East gonna look like? And which country may replace America's "Israel" with the same strategic value in geography, technology, business deals, etc.

I’ve been researching the history of socialist thought in trying to find a universal definition of socialism. I am trying to unify the two different intellectual traditions one rooted in timeless ethical imperatives and human dignity (Ethical/Revisionist Socialism, Kant and Bernstein) and the other rooted in cold, deterministic material laws ("Scientific" Socialism, Hegel and Marx). And I keep running into what feels like a massive internal contradiction in Marx’s deterministic framework. I’d love to get this community's perspective on these contradictions...

1. Inevitability vs. Mobilization
Marx explicitly dismisses "utopian" moral socialism, arguing that there is no abstract moral obligation to implement socialism. Instead, he claims the dialectic alone creates the material conditions that allow the working class to demand rights. In his view, his "scientific" economic laws will inevitably trigger a situation where the proletariat, driven by rational self interest, acts to end exploitation.

Even if rational self-interest and material laws are the drivers you still cant dismiss ethical/moral socialism when mobilizing the working class inherently requires a deep sense of moral outrage over exploitation? Predicting that worsening economic conditions will inevitably spark class consciousness feels like a roundabout way of saying that moral outrage is the ultimate catalyst for political action. Isn't Marx essentially just "predicting" that moral socialism will ultimately win out because economic conditions will get so bad that people are forced to adopt an ethical stance based in the rational self-interest of ending exploitation?

2. Exploitation Without a Moral Baseline
Marx tries to reject the "moral necessity for egalitarianism," treating universal dignity and rights as bourgeois illusions. Yet, the central pillar of ethical socialism and interdependent moral philosophy is that individual flourishing is inherently relational and bound to the flourishing of others and that rational self interest is still fundamentally rooted in ethical fairness.

To say that the extraction of surplus value is "exploitation" inherently implies that the worker is being cheated or treated unfairly. But "unfairness" is a purely moral concept. How can Marx's theories condemn human suffering and systemic exploitation while simultaneously rejecting the exact universal moral baseline required to define something as "bad" or "exploitative" in the first place?

Historical Context

Marx tried to have his cake and eat it too. He wanted the rhetorical power of the moral condemnation of capitalism, but the intellectual authority of a detached scientist. Marx based his "scientific" socialism on Gegor Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s dialectic, viewing history as an unstoppable, deterministic sequence of economic clashes. Marx believed that socialism would arrive automatically out of structural necessity, making human ethics unnecessary. Marx rejected the "moral necessity for egalitarianism," treating universal dignity and rights as "bourgeois illusions".

Bernstein's Revisionism flatly rejected this. He looked at the empirical data of the late 19th century and noted that Marx’s economic predictions were wrong. Because the "inevitable economic collapse" wasn't happening, Bernstein argued that socialism could no longer be treated as a scientific certainty. Instead, he argued it must be pursued as a conscious ethical choice. To build this ethical foundation, he famously declared a battle cry of "Back to Kant!".

Marx claims exploitation is just an amoral structural mechanism but his writings are full of fierce moral condemnation. He frequently describes capital as vampire like and calls accumulation "robbery" and "usurpation." He smuggled a moral framework into his scientific socialism because it is impossible to forcefully condemn human suffering without a baseline of fairness and human dignity.

Again the central pillar of Kantian Ethical/Moral and Revisionist Socialism is that individual flourishing is inherently relational and bound to the flourishing of others and that rational self interest is still fundamentally rooted in ethical fairness. So to condemn human suffering and systemic exploitation you need the exact type of abstract, timeless moral baseline he rejects in order to define something as "exploitative" in the first place.

I'm not American, and I'm not too knowledgable in your politics, but I would like to know why socialists do not vote for one of the two parties/candidates. Hypothetically if I were murdered by ICE, or if my life were ruined by Trumpist hyper-conservatism, or if I was forced to give birth as a child - would you still say to my face that actually, allowing Trump to win the elections was a good thing ?

question.

I was talking to my dad about it and he said that if communism is moneyless, how can he get a computer, who'll give it to him. It wasn't just about computers it was also about food, toothbrushes, nail clippers, curtains, just stuff like that.

How would you get these things?

Also if communism is moneyless how are exchanges made..

Hopefully this doesn't qualify as "questioning the basics of socialism" Sorry if this is wrong place but it seems like it's kinda hard to nail down an acceptable universal definition of Socialism. But here's my shot trying to come up with a short and sweet definition of socialism that encompasses all groups of socialist thought. Here's the short and long version I put together so far lmk what you think ...

Short Version:

Socialism : a collectivist implementation of egalitarianism

Long Version:

Socialism is the ideology of collectively pushing society towards a future of cooperation to ensure everyone has their needs met.

While that can be a definition of the ideology, the methodology is equally as diverse and hard to define. Again in general the methodologies generally involve some form of a collective movement in society aimed at implementing egalitarianism or an egalitarian restructuring of society implemented by the vast majority, specifically to remedy the harms of capitalism.

With egalitarianism being the goal and collectivism being the methodology.

Egalitarianism could also be defined as the belief that all humans share the same basic value and rights. That the aims of society should involve everyone helping each other so that those who are not gifted, ambitious or lucky are not denied the essentials for dignity.

I have read Varoufakis, Zizek, Clara Matteo, and Naomi Klein, but it doesn't feel like any are taking on the mantle of leading the conversation. Who is at the vanguard today?

​

I get supporting socialism if you are in the lower 10% income/assets category. But why should someone sitting at the top 30% or top 20% income support socialism when under capitalism he has a decent chance of eventually reaching top 5% or even top 1%?

Whats the point for them to intentionally nerf their "ceilling" just so other people can have better and fairer wages/life standarts ? Why would someone willingly sacrifice starus/wealth for individuals he does not know and has no reason to care about?

i'm mostly talking about miners and engineers and neurosurgeons. Especially people who manufacture computers and airplanes. Because those jobs are really really difficult so no one will wanna do it, and also they'll prolly be a shortage

What'll motivate them to do such hard things and also how will they "own the means of production". what does that even mean

Is voting for Angie Nixion for Florida Senate a win for Marxists in Florida? I know she's a social democrat who calls herself a Socialist, but even though she still works alongside bourgeois politics is she a win for Marxist and does she help push socialism to a brighter light?

One thing I’m particularly curious about is why organizations that primarily aim to organize wage workers and build their politics around the working class attract so much hostility within the Western left, including from some Marxists.

I keep seeing some pretty wild accusations directed at the KKE especially with people calling them “conservative leftists” or “transphobic” despite the fact that as far as I can tell their actual positions are often misrepresented and they have some fairly progressive policies on LGBTQ+ rights compared to most of other political parties in Europe including most of the left.

Meanwhile, much of the European left seems unable to build a solid base among working people relying instead primarily on support from the middle class, intellectuals and students. There’s nothing inherently wrong with these groups supporting the left of course but shouldn’t we be aiming for something broader than that? Shouldn’t our social base consist primarily of working-class people, especially low-income workers, considering that organizing and representing them is literally the reason we exist in the first place?

I’m genuinely curious about how others here see this. Why do parties like the KKE attract so much hostility from other sections of the left and to what extent is this hostility justified?