Interested me

[the questionist]

Hello all. As the old saying goes, curiosity killed the proverbial cat. Well, hopefully not in this case.:)

I am rather young so you'll have to forgive the disparity of knowledge I may exhibit in the daunting realm of politics. I have not taken any substantial positions as of yet as I find it more constructive to listen and absorb all arguments. I have been to Republican and Democrat forums and thought it might be a good idea to listen to the ideas socialism and communism have to offer.

I've already read some of the information provided by the board stickies and I will be sure to form some questions as soon as I organize and process all of that information. lol.

I would find it extremely beneficial to me if someone here wouldn't mind helping me understand the basic position of communists and socialists. Thanks so much.

-?ist

[Chapter 24]

Hello all. As the old saying goes, curiosity killed the proverbial cat. Well, hopefully not in this case.:)

I am rather young so you'll have to forgive the disparity of knowledge I may exhibit in the daunting realm of politics. I have not taken any substantial positions as of yet as I find it more constructive to listen and absorb all arguments. I have been to Republican and Democrat forums and thought it might be a good idea to listen to the ideas socialism and communism have to offer.

I've already read some of the information provided by the board stickies and I will be sure to form some questions as soon as I organize and process all of that information. lol.

I would find it extremely beneficial to me if someone here wouldn't mind helping me understand the basic position of communists and socialists. Thanks so much.

-?ist

Welcome to the board. :) I like your name, and it's true: asking questions and receiving answers is essential to learning.

Basically, socialists view society as having increasing class tensions due to the current economic and political system under which the majority of the world lives and operates in: capitalism, which is based of private ownership of the means of production that are operated for capital. In modern times, we live in a society where the ruling class is composed of these capitalists (or, as many communists both Marxists and non-Marxists alike, refer to them, the bourgeoisie), who exploit and oppress the working class (the proletariat).
Karl Marx, who is the founder of the modern socialist movement and the political philosophy known as Marxism, stated that history should be viewed at in terms of class struggle, and that each evolving class conflict developed into different economic systems (i.e. feudalism, capitalism, etc.) in which a ruling class ruled over lower classes. Marx, who lived during the Industrial Revolution and when numerous countries such as the U.K. and U.S. were beginning industrialization, said that this process will ultimately result in workers' rebellion over the control of the means of production.
Socialism is the state ownership of the means of production, which gradually evolves into communism, a stateless, classless society in which the workers fully own the means of production.
Anyway, that's all I can really come up with for now. Ask if you're confused on any of what I'm saying.

[RedAnarchist]

Hi, welcome to RevLeft. Our membership tends to be quite young so your age is of no real concern to us.:)

[trivas7]

When I first learned of the ideals of socialism I thought it had little to do with the society and its values that I saw around me. Then I remembered Arthur C. Clarke's dictum that any advanced technology would seem like magic to a savage. So I allowed my imagination to wander where it would and considered that a new world was possible. Have fun, good luck.

YouTube vids on Kapitalism 101 (http://www.youtube.com/user/brendanmcooney)

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I would find it extremely beneficial to me if someone here wouldn't mind helping me understand the basic position of communists and socialists.What separates all branches of socialism from capitalism is a rejection of wealth made from non-labor holdings: private property.

There are two primary sources of wealth in the world, land and labor. Capital derives from labor as an outcome, and land is not the product of human toil.

There is a recognition among socialists that rights do not derive from nature and that the current theories in defense of property are based off of such frivelous claims. Economics is social. Whereas your words do not inhibit me from speaking my mind, your use of resources automatically affects me. Since I'm affected, I have a say in the contract.

Capitalists make some mistakes in their reasoning: 1.) they ascribe rights to property to defend existing property rights 2.) they do not recognize economics as social 3.) they justify the extraction of resources in a class hierarchy. Socialists recognize the individual's sovereignty when it comes to expending labor, but reject the exlusive, non-decidable sovereignty of resources and land - since they predate civilization for thousands of years.

I hope that is some help.

- Gene

[Dros]

Hi, welcome to RevLeft. Our membership tends to be quite young so your age is of no real concern to us.:)

Except to me. I hate young people. Which is why I enjoy eating babies.
:laugh:

Welcome to the board!

[the questionist]

What separates all branches of socialism from capitalism is a rejection of wealth made from non-labor holdings: private property.To my detriment I am unfamiliar with all the branches. Can you explain that a little bit more? I assume that it is socialism that rejects wealth generated on private property?



There are two primary sources of wealth in the world, land and labor. Capital derives from labor as an outcome, and land is not the product of human toil.Is capital proportional to labor? If capital is accumulated over time then does this mean the source of capital is also labor? Would not labor have to forgo wages? And if forgoing wages is a necessity, is the capital voluntarily given from the labor? Thinking about it, and please help me understand if I don't, it doesn't seem to me that land itself is particularly valuable. Wouldn't the product of the land be the valuable asset as opposed to the rock and dirt? In the case of a farm or vineyard, doesn't this require human activity to cultivate and come into existence?


There is a recognition among socialists that rights do not derive from nature and that the current theories in defense of property are based off of such frivelous claims. Economics is social. Whereas your words do not inhibit me from speaking my mind, your use of resources automatically affects me. Since I'm affected, I have a say in the contract.Can you explain what is meant by rights? I think you brought up a very insightful point. Would my use of resources affect you in a negative sense? If my use of resources affect you in consumption then my use of resources should also affect you in production as well right? If I created more of a resource then what is the status of that created wealth relative to me and the rest of society? I am uncertain what is implied by the contract. I have no idea what the contract is.


Capitalists make some mistakes in their reasoning: 1.) they ascribe rights to property to defend existing property rights 2.) they do not recognize economics as social 3.) they justify the extraction of resources in a class hierarchy. Socialists recognize the individual's sovereignty when it comes to expending labor, but reject the exlusive, non-decidable sovereignty of resources and land - since they predate civilization for thousands of years.From the very little I know of capitalism I am uncertain if I would claim it isn't social. I think any economic activity is social unless we choose to live alone without any interaction with the world. Non social economics would also exclude trade would it not? Do capitalists ascribe rights to property in the sense of abstraction from people? Meaning, property would have property rights over other property? That sounds rather absurd in my humble opinion. I think your last comment here is very interesting. I was under the persuasion that individual beings required resources to sustain themselves. I thought expending of labor helped create wealth out of these resources for consumption or trade by the individual. Isn't it necessary that individuals have access to resources and that they must claim exclusivity over certain resources as consumption of a particular resource would require exclusivity? I am probably misunderstanding this but its sort of sounds like you're suggesting an individual should be free to choose where he wants to work, sweat, and toil , but he may not claim any of the resources for himself that he might have cultivated or brought to fruition. If he may not decide for himself , who or what does? Again, I apologize if I didn't understand the argument but I am always open to correction and clarification.


- :)

-?ist

[Drace]

Hello Questionist :) Nice to see you on the Light side!:)

I suggest you read the "Class Struggle" by Karl Kautsky.
Its a nice explanation of how capitalism works on exploitation.

You can read it online here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1892/erfurt/ch01.htm

Better if you just print it out so you don't hurt your eyes :)

Btw, Welcome!

[shorelinetrance]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/deleon/works/1896/960126.htm

also a must read in my opinion the difference between revolution and reform is paramount to understanding socialism.

[revolution inaction]

There are two main kinds of socialism, Anarchism and Marxism, each of which have several varieties, and there are also socialist who are nether.
Don't confuse communism with marxism, communisum was developed before marx and many anarchist (maybe the majority?) are communist.
Karl Marx was a vary significant socialist thinker who lived in the middle of the 19th century but he was far from the first, Marxism was started by people who base there theories largely on the work of Marx.
Modern anarchism was first developed during the 19th century, there is not really an single person who can be said to have inspired it, the most significant individual in early anarchism is Mikhail Bakunin, But there are many others and anarchism uses whatever ideas are best, and doesn't stick to any one thinker, including marx.
Both currents have been significantly influenced by, and had influence on workers struggle and historical events.
I think the most significant revolutionary events for both anarchist and marxists are, the Paris commune, the Russian revolution, and the Spanish civl war, although there were of cause many other revolutions.
Anarchists and Marxist often have significantly different interpretations of these events, due to differences in there theory.
I don't think I will try to explain the ideas of anarchism and marxisum here, at least not now, there are many different kinds of each, and right now i can't be bothered, My self I am a anarchist communist, I quite like anarcho-syndicalism, and also read stuff by marxists.
If you want to learn about socialism then I recommend you check out libcom (libcom.org) (an anarchist/libertarian-communist websight) and the Marxist internet archive (http://www.marxists.org/), Both have significant archives and libcom also has forums where you can ask stuff (but not in libcommunity).
To learn about capitalist economics you could try reading this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/index.htm), but as you can see it is vary long, try reading the first chapter for now.
This may give you some idea what anarchisum is about (http://libcom.org/library/anarchism-britannica-kropotkin).
This web sight is designed for people who don't know much about anarchism (http://www.libr8.org/index-en.html)
If you are interested in something fairly detailed try the anarchist faq (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/)

[Raúl Duke]

Helping me understand the basic position of communists and socialists. Thanks so much. I would like to point out that there are differences between communists and socialists. A communist is a socialist but not all socialists are communists.

Communism is a state-less class-less society in which the economy meets the maxim: From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.

Basically, a socialist government aims to meet the demands of the working class over that of the elite/capitalist. Socialism, unlike communism, has money (capital) or similar forms of exchange.
For Marxists (which are communists), a socialism is a transitional stage in which the state/government will "fight" against the capitalists and/or their ideologies while placing up the setting blocks for the transition to communism. In my opinion, the regimes created by marxist-leninist parties did not reach communism and likely did very little to go towards that goal. One reason for this failure is the fact that the majority of the places where a M-L seizure of power took place where either late feudal societies with a little bit of capitalism. Another reason might had to do with the environment inside the socialist state and it's relation to the rest of society.

"Authoritarian" Socialists and Libertarian Socialists are 2 strands of socialism. Authoritarians stress the need of a state ruled by a group, usually the vanguard of the proletariat (A problem is that sometimes these rulers claim to be the vanguard yet might actually not be). Libertarian Socialists oppose the use of the "state" (specifically, a government ruled by an elite of sorts who claim to "rule for our own good") and prefer more "bottom-up" forms of government and sometimes also decentralization.

[the questionist]

Welcome to the board. :) I like your name, and it's true: asking questions and receiving answers is essential to learning.

Basically, socialists view society as having increasing class tensions due to the current economic and political system under which the majority of the world lives and operates in: capitalism, which is based of private ownership of the means of production that are operated for capital. In modern times, we live in a society where the ruling class is composed of these capitalists (or, as many communists both Marxists and non-Marxists alike, refer to them, the bourgeoisie), who exploit and oppress the working class (the proletariat).
Karl Marx, who is the founder of the modern socialist movement and the political philosophy known as Marxism, stated that history should be viewed at in terms of class struggle, and that each evolving class conflict developed into different economic systems (i.e. feudalism, capitalism, etc.) in which a ruling class ruled over lower classes. Marx, who lived during the Industrial Revolution and when numerous countries such as the U.K. and U.S. were beginning industrialization, said that this process will ultimately result in workers' rebellion over the control of the means of production.
Socialism is the state ownership of the means of production, which gradually evolves into communism, a stateless, classless society in which the workers fully own the means of production.
Anyway, that's all I can really come up with for now. Ask if you're confused on any of what I'm saying.

Thanks for the information. It is helpful. :)
Did Karl Marx predict socialism would take root in the most industrialized countries first? ( i.e. U.S. + Western Europe) I don't know very much history so please forgive me for any errors but the way I understand it is that socialism took root in Russia first which was a pre-industrial nation, no? It would have seemed Russia was for the most part still practicing feudalism and 'skipped' capitalism. Wouldn't that seriously compromise Marx's view on history and the future?
I am also puzzled at your last comment. If I'm understanding correctly, socialism is supposed to transform into communism but it seems that communism is the opposite of socialism according to the description. When you say 'gradually' does that mean peacefully? How does a society completely controlled by the centralized state eliminate the centralized state and then accept the opposite? Why would the leaders give up that much power? How is this supposed to be enacted peacefully?

[Drace]

Did Karl Marx predict socialism would take root in the most industrialized countries first?

Yes. It is essential that it happened in developed countries.


If I'm understanding correctly, socialism is supposed to transform into communism but it seems that communism is the opposite of socialism according to the description.

Opposite? The main difference is that in communism, there is no state, it is run democratically by the people and that money is eliminated and it becomes a matter of "According to ability, according to need".

Marx believed the state would whither away over time, as there would be less use of it. Of course, for this to happen, the state would have to give up its power, so dictatorship for the socialist era is not the best choice, I suppose?

Communism - "By the people, for the people" :P The next step for the US.

Mmm someone correct me if I am wrong.

[the questionist]

There are two main kinds of socialism, Anarchism and Marxism, each of which have several varieties, and there are also socialist who are nether.
Don't confuse communism with marxism, communisum was developed before marx and many anarchist (maybe the majority?) are communist.
Karl Marx was a vary significant socialist thinker who lived in the middle of the 19th century but he was far from the first, Marxism was started by people who base there theories largely on the work of Marx.
Modern anarchism was first developed during the 19th century, there is not really an single person who can be said to have inspired it, the most significant individual in early anarchism is Mikhail Bakunin, But there are many others and anarchism uses whatever ideas are best, and doesn't stick to any one thinker, including marx.
Both currents have been significantly influenced by, and had influence on workers struggle and historical events.
I think the most significant revolutionary events for both anarchist and marxists are, the Paris commune, the Russian revolution, and the Spanish civl war, although there were of cause many other revolutions.
Anarchists and Marxist often have significantly different interpretations of these events, due to differences in there theory.
I don't think I will try to explain the ideas of anarchism and marxisum here, at least not now, there are many different kinds of each, and right now i can't be bothered, My self I am a anarchist communist

Thanks for this post. I didn't know that socialism and anarchism could be compatible. I just always thought socialism ( or communism) depended on a large centralized state for their continued existence. I always assumed anarchists were sort of like nihilists or radical free market supporters. Very interesting to learn something new. :)
I am afraid I'm confused with the way you described Marxism, communism, and socialism. I've always assumed, probably incorrectly, that they are basically the same thing. At least it always appeared that way.
So, lets see if I got this right, socialism consists two branches. Marxism and anarchism. Communism is something separate but also anarchistic? If anarchism is both socialism and communism, and communism and socialism seem like opposites- I guess the issue of the state, then how is it that anarchism is both? From the description of communism I am getting here, what is the difference between a communist and anarcho-communist? I thought communists were opposed to states anyway. Wouldn't then an anarcho-communist be redundant? I think I understand the differences but I am still not sure 100%. Any further info would be extremely helpful. Thanks guys.

-?ist

[More Fire for the People]

Here's an antiquated, but still useful, account of communist principles: Principles of Communism by Engels (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm). I also recommend Lenin's State and Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/), but keep in mind Lenin is not a very good writer.

[the questionist]

Yes. It is essential that it happened in developed countries.


Opposite? The main difference is that in communism, there is no state, it is run democratically by the people and that money is eliminated and it becomes a matter of "According to ability, according to need".

Marx believed the state would whither away over time, as there would be less use of it. Of course, for this to happen, the state would have to give up its power, so dictatorship for the socialist era is not the best choice, I suppose?

Communism - "By the people, for the people" :P The next step for the US.

Mmm someone correct me if I am wrong.

But it didn't happen in developed countries or did it? Wouldn't the issue of the state be a pretty significant difference though instead of just some small disagreement?
Communism wants to get rid of money? How would everything be provided for each? What if there were a lot more needy than people with ability? Wouldn't this require a world without scarcity? Is such a thing a tangible reality or perhaps fantasy?
I guess I'm curious as to how Marx thought the large state would just whither away. I am no history expert by any stretch of the imagination but it would seem to me that state power tends to grow over time and it simply doesn't whither away. I guess its totally possible to wither away and the central state to give up power voluntarily but it seems very unlikely.

[Anarch_Mesa]

Hello all. As the old saying goes, curiosity killed the proverbial cat. Well, hopefully not in this case.

I am rather young so you'll have to forgive the disparity of knowledge I may exhibit in the daunting realm of politics. I have not taken any substantial positions as of yet as I find it more constructive to listen and absorb all arguments. I have been to Republican and Democrat forums and thought it might be a good idea to listen to the ideas socialism and communism have to offer.

I've already read some of the information provided by the board stickies and I will be sure to form some questions as soon as I organize and process all of that information. lol.

I would find it extremely beneficial to me if someone here wouldn't mind helping me understand the basic position of communists and socialists. Thanks so much.

-?ist


Knowledge does'nt seem to take you as far as insanity does in the political discussions. I think that it is smart that you do not take into a certain party of group, but I don't necissarily think that you need to look for a title. My suggestion would be to start reading, I can suggest fifty-million places to start. If you are younger I would suggest Orwell my personal favorite of his being Animal Farm and I think that even at a young age it would be easily readible.

[Drace]

But it didn't happen in developed countries or did it? Wouldn't the issue of the state be a pretty significant difference though instead of just some small disagreement?
Communism wants to get rid of money? How would everything be provided for each? What if there were a lot more needy than people with ability? Wouldn't this require a world without scarcity? Is such a thing a tangible reality or perhaps fantasy?
I guess I'm curious as to how Marx thought the large state would just whither away. I am no history expert by any stretch of the imagination but it would seem to me that state power tends to grow over time and it simply doesn't whither away. I guess its totally possible to wither away and the central state to give up power voluntarily but it seems very unlikely.The Industrial Revolution brought machinery to the world that could do many mens work alone. The means of production are a lot higher to support everyone in the world. The capitalist uses this great production for profit, when it should be used for the PEOPLE. What happened was that people were robbed off their jobs since there were factories that could do they work much more easily. Take a gun smith for an example. A machine can probably produce 100x then what he can do alone. He couldn't make any money, so it was either you starve or go work in a factory. The problem with working in a factory is like I said, exploitation of labor. It is how the capitalist makes his profit. If he were to give the worker an equal amount for his work, he would go bankrupt. And not only is worker, but the buyer of the produced is exploited as he has to pay more then what the product was worse. And we complain about taxes that add on a few bucks to a product's price, when we can be paying over two times the price of what it is worth...

People are united in making the production, but it is the capitalist that gets all the loot. By giving the worker's the control of the production, no one benefits more then another from production.

"According to ability, according to need" means that one works up to as much his capable of. This does not mean that you are forced to work your bones off though. Just that one is more talented then the other, and they are to work as their ability can. According to need refers to the disturbance of goods. Well its not as to so "equal". Its based on what you need. If your a family of 5, you obviously need more then a family of 2. This also means, that one who is not able to work, should not have to, but should still deserve the benefits.

Seniors are seen to be able to benefit from the production, because they have served the others are their youth.

As far as how the disturbance goes...there are different thoughts on it. I think most agree that there will be a place, like a store, where the produced goods go. The people are to go to these places and pick whatever they would like :) And there is limits of course.

Humans are to enjoy their life as they live, work is not to be done so restrictions to opportunity of pleasure are decreased, but to ensure that the opportunities are always available.

The capitalist point of view, is that you work and you get payed and use that money to overcome restrictions that are set in life. It should be rather that all things are given to people, and people should only work so that these things are made available.

As of the withering away of the state, I really don't know much about. I'll leave that for someone to answer.

[Chapter 24]

Did Karl Marx predict socialism would take root in the most industrialized countries first? ( i.e. U.S. + Western Europe)

Yes, in fact Russia was probably the last country he expected to have a communist revolution.


but the way I understand it is that socialism took root in Russia first which was a pre-industrial nation, no? It would have seemed Russia was for the most part still practicing feudalism and 'skipped' capitalism.
Wouldn't that seriously compromise Marx's view on history and the future?

This is where oppositional theories come into place. Following the revolution, Leon Trotsky and Joseph Stalin, two of the five original full members of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, had different viewpoints on world revolution. Trotsky argued that in order for socialism to survive in the Soviet Union, communist revolutions must be funded and supported in order to shape an international proletarian revolution; Stalin, on the other hand, adopted the state policy known as Socialism in One Country, which states that the USSR must be strengthened internally in order to survive, which would require massive economic changes in the field of industry and agriculture - in this way, the Soviet Union would arise to become a great proletarian state and thus would have the influence to sufficiently create world revolution. Stalin used this quote from Lenin to justify his argument:


"...Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world ...".

However, I myself do not have a concrete position on this as of this moment. Trotskyists argue that Socialism in One Country is ignoring the international revolutionary movement, while Stalinists (though almost all of them refer to themselves as "Marxist-Leninists") counter-argue that while world revolution is desirable it is not practical in the Trotskyist sense.


I am also puzzled at your last comment. If I'm understanding correctly, socialism is supposed to transform into communism but it seems that communism is the opposite of socialism according to the description

Marxists argue that the state is used a tool of violence for a ruling class, and during each class conflict another class rises to power and changes the relations to production (i.e. when the merchant class rose during the fall of feudal relations during the Industrial Revolution). The proletariat would use the state to wipe out the old world of the bourgeoisie and repress that class in order to create a worker's state. The means of production would be given to the workers the actually operate them and most productive property is owned in common. When class differences are finally eliminated a state will no longer prove necessary and no longer needed.

[revolution inaction]

Thanks for this post. I didn't know that socialism and anarchism could be compatible. I just always thought socialism ( or communism) depended on a large centralized state for their continued existence. I always assumed anarchists were sort of like nihilists or radical free market supporters. Very interesting to learn something new.

I remember when I found out communism wasn't invented by Marx :)
All anarchists are anti capitalist, though not necessarily communist, there are many ideas of how society could be organised in a socialist manner.
There quite a lot of people who call themselves anarchists who just want to rebel against society, but have no idea how to change it, they are often called lifestylists by other anarchists.
"radical free market supporters" I assume you mean the anarcho-capitalists or the market anarchists? There are not really anarchists because there ideas contradict many anarchist principles, I think they just like the sound of the word anarchism :) most of them don't know much about capitalism either :)


I am afraid I'm confused with the way you described Marxism, communism, and socialism. I've always assumed, probably incorrectly, that they are basically the same thing. At least it always appeared that way.
So, lets see if I got this right, socialism consists two branches. Marxism and anarchism. Communism is something separate but also anarchistic? If anarchism is both socialism and communism, and communism and socialism seem like opposites- I guess the issue of the state, then how is it that anarchism is both?


Well I would define socialism roughly as the idea that society should be run for the good of all its members, and that all people are equal regardless of sex, race, nationality etc.
Socialism is not opposite to communism, communism is a socialist form of economic system, "To each according to need, from each according to ability" is the basic principle, and Anarchism is a way of organising society without rulers.

Often Marxists (and to a lesser extent anarchists) use different definitions for words than most people. Marxist think there will be a transitional period between capitalism and communism, and some of them (I think only the Leninists) call this period socialism.
I think that non leninist marxists (mainly Left communists) see the transitional period differently, I think the left communist view it as part of the revolution, or in a way that anarchists would see as part of the revolution.
Leninist think the USSR was socialist at some point, Anarchists think that it was never socialist, we usually describe it as state capitalist.
So really socialism can mean quite different things depending on who is talking about it.



From the description of communism I am getting here, what is the difference between a communist and anarcho-communist? I thought communists were opposed to states anyway. Wouldn't then an anarcho-communist be redundant?

In theory it is, but in practice there are many anarchists who don't believe in communist economics and many people who call themselves communist who have authoritarian politics, its just an a way of describing our politics quickly.

I hope this helps

[revolution inaction]

I am no history expert by any stretch of the imagination but it would seem to me that state power tends to grow over time and it simply doesn't whither away.

I completely agree with this, but this is another case where marxists use a different definition of a word to everyone else.
Anarchist usually define a stat as an instrument of minority rule, but marxist define it as an instament of clas rule, like Lightning says.



Communism wants to get rid of money? How would everything be provided for each? What if there were a lot more needy than people with ability? Wouldn't this require a world without scarcity? Is such a thing a tangible reality or perhaps fantasy?

I think Drace has all ready dealt with this, I just want to say a couple of things.
1
There is already more food produced than is needed by all the people in the world, but still people starve because they cant afford it, in fact in most (all I think) modern famines food has been exported from regions where people where starving because more money would be made elsewhere.
In capitalism over production is a disaster as it reduces profits, in communism it means we get time off :)
2
There are millions of people who could work but cant get a job, in a communist society every one who could work would, meaning shorter hours for every one, but in a capitalist society full employment is unprofitable.

[the questionist]

Please, my friends, forgive my belated response but life's daunting tasks have been beckoning. I will try my best to correspond here in kind. Now to move forward:


Knowledge does'nt seem to take you as far as insanity does in the political discussions. I think that it is smart that you do not take into a certain party of group, but I don't necissarily think that you need to look for a title. My suggestion would be to start reading, I can suggest fifty-million places to start. If you are younger I would suggest Orwell my personal favorite of his being Animal Farm and I think that even at a young age it would be easily readible.

Thank for the helpful recommendations. I will take them into consideration.
I very much agree with you that conformity to a conclusion is folly as new, undiscovered, or overlooked facts could easily change a conclusion.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Hello Questionist :) Nice to see you on the Light side!:)

I suggest you read the "Class Struggle" by Karl Kautsky.
Its a nice explanation of how capitalism works on exploitation.

You can read it online here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1892/erfurt/ch01.htm

Better if you just print it out so you don't hurt your eyes :)

Btw, Welcome!

Since you recommended Kautsky's most important work, I direct you to the Study Groups thread. :)