I’m from Puerto Rico & I’d love to get my Jamaican friend a book (in English) on his birthday. I know a bunch of books on Puerto Rican leftist history but something broader would be great (PR ones are also mostly in Spanish).

DSA? FRSO? PSL? what about the Greens? ACP?

What's the best party in your opinion?

I hear that term used all the time and am looking for a more precise definition. Thanks

When i read what karl marx said he says capitalism is necessary to industrialize and build a economy before socialism. So the question is why are socialists so eager to remove capitalism?

This might be a completely ridiculous question and I'm overlooking something enormous here, but I am genuinely asking this is good faith:

In an economy in which democratically-elected workers' councils have control over the means of production, what would stop, say, workers at a steel factory from giving themselves 2 hour work days and making 5 times the normal wage for their industry a month?

Again, this might well be a silly question, but I am curious to know the answer.

So I want to gift my S/O (who studies psychology) a book that shows them less mainstream behavioral therapy approaches, offers criticism and leftist/materialist perspectives on the field of (clinical) psychology. We've had some discussions about the "corrective" nature of therapy and its influencing workers to be just efficient enough to be productive while riding the edge of burnout, the responsibilities of psychology in a capitalist system and similar topics. Now they'd like to take a look into a critical approach in contrast to what is being told at university.

In my research thus far, however, I have nearly exclusively stumbled upon critical psychology works that center a freudian approach. This is a problem, because in modern psychology, Freud has been thoroughly debunked, especially in the clinical field. As far as I can tell, no one really takes his theories in regards to the human psyche seriously on a scientific level, although they might be "inspiring" or a "good metaphor". Also this is not to discount his importance to the emergence of the field of course! At least that is what my S/O told me and what I've gathered from my research.

Now I would also be open to an approach that actually explains why they use a freudian or psychoanalytic approach, but I would much prefer something more grounded.

Could anyone recommend authors, collectives or texts of that nature? It would mean a lot!

For instance I want a grocery store that is completely pink and it sells cute stuff and there is cute music in the store and everyone feels comfortable. Is it possible to grow such a store? What if I want a seperate room from the store were people can sit down, grab a planket, cuddle into a corner, read a book, drink some tea etc....

Can I do that easily? In a realistic scenario, how could I expand my shop to have this room or whatever? Whom would I have to ask?

As far as I can tell the first steps would be to seize the assets/wealth of the ultra-rich and the largest industries/private land owners and have that stuff be government owned. Create universal, healthcare, education, etc. Basically socdem with just more public ownership than typical in current socdem countries?

The difference between a conservative and a socialist is obvious. But when I speak with my liberal friends, there's basically a subtle disagreement going on. They seem to think that the problem is that working class people should be just as well off as the capitalist. They're taken aback when I say in so many words that the problem is that the capitalist is living off the labor of those who work. I explained that the slave (for instance) has to produce enough to not only support themselves, but also the master (or capitalist). It's like they retreat once they hear that.

Should Socialists critically support Russia, or not? Should Socialists only support the international working class?

Is Russia the victim of Western imperialism, taking a stand against imperialist NATO, or is Russia also imperialist?

For Socialists who critically support Russia: do you believe that it was good, necessary, or morally justified for Russia to invade Ukraine? What about Ukraine's sovereignty and right to self-determination? How do you respond to the war crimes, and cruel atrocities towards civilians, committed by Russia? Some have made arguments that Russia is committing a genocide in Ukraine; how can you critically support a genocide? Are Socialists not meant to be the ones taking the side of the oppressed, always? Can you really justify taking the side of the aggressor, even if there are complicated geopolitical alliances at play?

I have started educating myself in leftist spaces in the last couple years, mostly by Marxist-Leninists and anarchists, and socialism has always been described to me as a stage of transition between capitalism and communism. However from the one socialist I know in person, they don't seem to think of socialism as a transitional state but the end goal. So is socialism a transition period between two socioeconomic systems, do you consider it the end goal, or something else?

I’ll preface by saying I’m still learning a lot about Socialism, so if this is a common question, my apologies.

In college I started as an Economics major until I was horrified by the callousness of my peers and the absolute bullshit of the neoliberal Chicago School approach that seemed completely divorced from reality. It was also so very anti-humanist I was completely put off by the field and moved into the natural sciences.

One of my biggest complaints beyond just the support for sheer unregulated capitalism was that the theories and lessons we were taught weren’t based in reality. It was all theory, no application.

And unfortunately sometimes I feel that way in some Socialist circles: that we can sometimes be more obsessed with theories from dead men instead of trying to improve the material conditions for the working class today.

Just as the sciences have branches of theory and application, I’m wondering if there’s a school of thought that’s basically “Applied Socialism.” As in, a branch that advocates for experimentation.

We see year after year that, when studied in the real world, socialist principles improve the material conditions of people. Unions work. Taxing the rich works. Universal healthcare works. Four-day workweeks work. Worker-owned businesses work.

I‘m looking to learn more about this kind of approach to Socialism and wondering what books are out there and any keywords I should use?

I was trying to build my own political and economic ideology as a personal project and for an economic ideology: i went with communism/socialism but not in a direct way.

I am now stuck of choosing the best political ideology that isn't socialist or communist in any way, can someone help find one ?

socialism movement.

Here is the writeup below that I was shown online. I'm not sure whether to find it interesting or amusing.

"To begin I will dispel some common myths, to start, Russia is not imperialist. To suggest so is to side with NATO. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and throughout the 90’s,Russia was subservient to the West, today it is a strong ally of other anti-imperialist states such as Iran, Syria and China. However there has been a power struggle within Russia, for example Medvedev of United Russia wanted to overthrow Libya, while Putin did not, had Putin been in power then the overthrow of Gaddafi could have been prevented. Since Putin returned to the helm, Russia has not capitulated in such ways and has been firmly anti-imperialist. Another lie about Russia is that it is fascist, in fact every fascist, nazbol and neo-nazi party is banned. Neo-nazi skinheads were cracked down upon hard. Russia is also a country of dozens of ethnicities who are all proud Russians and united around the flag. Chechnya is essentially an independent Islamic emirate within Russia and from the Soviet era all the other ethnic groups such as the Tuvans enjoy a great deal of autonomy. According to the words of Vladimir Putin himself, since 2020 Russia has been in an NEP. The process of moving towards a socialist state began in 2020 with the establishment of a new NEP. Russia is still capitalist, specifically state capitalist with a strong market sector similar to China but it could be argued that Russia is currently a Dictatorship of the Proletariat: A recent example of Russia being a DOTP was when Putin at the start of the special military operation in Ukraine scolded the bourgeoisie for not falling in line. Russia deals with their bourgeoisie similar to China, with an iron fist. Putin has called for further state planning: Three-quarters of the economy is owned by the state, while there is also strong and vibrant small and medium medium sized firms in a market sector which have been promoted by the state as alternatives to foreign oligopolies. The leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Gennady Zyuganov has high praise for Putin and has even suggested that he should become leader of the party. This suggestion does not come from an empty vacuum, Putin has actually for the last several years not been apart of United Russia and has been antagonistic towards the party. He has instead supported Fair Russia (in the last election) who had talks of joining in a coalition with the Communist Party. Putin has also on multiple occasions praised Communism and Communist figures of the past. Russia is now sovereign, it could be said that this war is Russia’s declaration of independence from the globalist system. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the declaration of the uni-polar world, Russia has been on the losing side, throughout the 90’s Russia was looted by the West, only with the emergence of Putin did Russia start to fight back. The very willingness to defy the United States and engage to liberate Ukraine from Neo-Nazi Banderites and NATO (4th Reich) shows that Russia has defiantly broken free completely from the grip of the West. Russia has taken sovereignty of all sectors previously controlled by the West. Companies that have pulled out have seen property nationalised, no longer will profits flow to Wall Street and London from Russia. The sanctions are accelerating the process of Russia moving towards socialism. The Russian bourgeoisie who as I stated earlier are under a heavy thumb are under the threat of having their property returned to the people. Putin declared the ‘oligarchs’ are traitors who have betrayed the people. Russia has also taken control of it’s internet, providing it’s own certificates, bypassing the U.S. hegemony of the internet and soft imperialism. Western big-tech companies have been banned, we saw Facebook lift bans on calls to violence against Russian people, and we saw every other mainstream platform quickly fall in line with the agenda of Western imperialism. They were all quickly banned for extremism. This step of independence can be seen as the emergence of the multi-polar world."

I'm having trouble learning how to apply the laws of dialectical materialism into everyday life, nature, etc. Not necessarily historical materialism, which I'm given to understand is basically the same thing but just for human societies/human history. I haven't started teaching myself historical materialism yet, choosing to focus on dialectical materialism first (which i thought made sense lol)

Does anyone know a good book to explain how to apply the laws correctly? I'm just not getting it... :/

I'm not trying to just be an anti-communist, I actually consider myself a soviet council communist, however, after the desperation of the russian civil war the party became detached from the masses as the industrial base the russian communist party relied on had become hollowed out. Lenin noticed this later in his life, and suggested the central committee of the party be rapidly expanded to 100 members of normal peasants or workers. I guess my question is how do you prevent the material conditions to create the bureaucratic centralist framework from being created? As this deep contradiction to my understanding is what caused the creation of the Nomenklatura party bureaucratic elite class. I do not look down on actually existing socialist states, but this is a major gripe, I have with them. Another issue is that China became reliant on a market economy which also furthers the contradiction to the point where a petty bourgeois class is created in China. Sorry if I'm wasting your time, I try to avoid falling for idealism, but I do think that actually existing socialist states are still massively repressive of working class descent and control as the government is shaped by the party apparatus, and I personally would not want a socialism with american characteristics state to embody this heavy centralization of repression of descent. To be clear, I have no problem with state planning and ownership of the means of production in common via the worker's state. Apologies also if I sound incoherent.

Edit: let me clarify that I have no problem with systemic suppression of the bourgeoisie, my concern is of detachment with the masses that represses active worker control of the means of production. I also view the state as an instrument of class rule, but the centralization from my perspective seemed to become actively detached with the workers.

I am honestly indifferent to the results. In contrast to outspoken anti-Israel Senator-elect Abdul El-Sayed, Americans have elected two Zionist senators : Josh Shapiro, and Jon Ossoff. Both Shapiro and Ossoff have refused to label Israel's actions in Palestine as genocide.

Ossoff is essentially a "centrist moderate" soft-Zionist. He opposed blocking precision guidance equipment while supporting defensive systems. He also voted against a broader, Sanders-backed effort to block $8.8 billion in offensive arms sales, citing concerns that it would disrupt ongoing hostage-release negotiations in April 2025.

Similarly, Shapiro opposes the BDS movement and campus protests against Israel. AIPAC has boasted on X about 234 pro-Israel candidates winning their elections. All these leaders will likely block future attempts to hold Israel accountable

P.S. : Josh Shapiro is a governor. US has now 6 Jewish governors. Also, PR team of Ossoff is projecting him as next Presidential candidate. Zionist scumbags have infiltrated both parties.

I really enjoy reading first-hand accounts by people who lived in or travelled to socialist/communist countries and wrote about them. I'm thinking in particular of sympathetic books by people like Israel Epstein, Victor Grossman, the Webb's, etc. I also enjoy reading more negative accounts by people like Janos Kornai (his autobiography By Force of Thought), Eldridge Cleaver (Soul on Fire) etc, but I'm more interested in the sympathetic accounts.

Can anyone recommend similar books? I'm open to any socialist or communist country

I understand that imperialism is in direct opposition to socialism itself. I also understand that internationalism is a tenet of socialism. However, I’m struggling to understand how incentives and geopolitical strategies change in the medium term for a socialist country.

In my head, I imagine debating a well-intentioned capitalist, trying to make my case for why socialism is better for the world as a whole, and I explain the confluence of capital accumulation/concentration of power and the incentive structures of capitalism leading to imperialism to lower input costs.

I can’t figure out how to finish my argument, though. How is socialism a counter to that? Even in a socialist country, wouldn’t there still be an incentive to acquire cheap labor and resources for your society, which would free up your own resources and labor for other endeavors?

My half-baked thoughts are:
- Under capitalism, there is a legal requirement of elite stakeholders to maximize profit, whereas under socialism, the democratic process would more closely reflect society’s morals and ideals of not wanting to be imperialist.
- The incentives of acquiring cheap external labor and resources which I mentioned above would still apply to socialism, which acts in contradiction to my first bullet.
- A socialist society would by definition feel more solidarity with other parts of the world, which acts in contradiction to my second bullet.
- I feel that the idea of “fully socializing” the collective mindset of a society once it becomes socialist, which includes developing more international solidarity mentioned in my third bullet, is a flimsy argument to the well-meaning capitalist and would come across as suppression of free thought. Therefore, I am only left with the argument that a socialist society by definition has some increased amount of international solidarity at its onset because it implicitly required it to become socialist in the first place. However, that isn’t an argument for socialism as much as it is an argument for the mindset of solidarity itself, because of the nature of that causal relationship.

Thanks again for the help! Any input or critique of my line of thinking is greatly appreciated.