New to this all, and shocked

[RA89]

Hi guys

I've on and off read about politics for the past few years.

But it's only this year I've realised how outrageously selfish conservatives are.

I was arguing with some about welfare. A few of them were delusional about there being a level playing field and suggested poor people have the same chance of success and rich people.

A few honest ones admitted there were disadvantages though, but stuck with the "they should stop being lazy" argument. So I mentioned how there are more unemployed people than there are jobs available, so there would also be people out of work thus unable to earn and needing help. Without help they'd live in poor conditions or worse starve.

Their response was basically "why is it my problem?" or "why should I be forced to help them?"

So people should suffer because they were unfortunate to be born into a bad situation?!

Are these people unable to empathize? How selfish can someone be where they ignore vulnerable people and just focus on themselves.

Any discussion I have with conservatives tends to turn into them justifying their selfishness.

I then tried to research why so many of them thought this way. Surely this is some kind of personality disorder?

I found these articles (I'm guessing the bits of info are possibly common knowledge but thought I'd share to provide an insight into what bothered me). edit: will provide links when I have enough posts to do so

<link coming soon> - interesting experiment, people who given money for doing a test, and either told to spend it on themselves or given a choice to donate to charity or spend it on themselves.
People were happy when told to spend it on themselves. Similar to conservative ideology which forces people to adhere to this selfish mindset, thus alleviating the guilt of not helping the poorer people.

<link coming soon> - this one shows that the ideology they have basically rationalizes social inequalities.

<link coming soon> - "Participants were happier with self-interest when they believed that it was externally chosen."

These people say what they believe with such conviction that I find myself wondering if I was wrong to believe humans naturally create societies to HELP EACH OTHER???

Anyway I wouldn't say I'm a liberal or leftie (not yet anyway). Just came here to learn and ask questions. All responses are appreciated, even if it is a link to another post/article. All I ask is that they are not too complicated to read because I am far from an expert (or intelligent lol).


1] Difference between communism and socialism?

2] In a society, I believe that there shouldn't be large gaps between classes. However I do think gaps should exist because I believe someone who builds spaceships or does brain surgery deserves to be paid more than the retail worker (who should be paid fairly of course but nonetheless in proportion to the education required for the role, the value of the job etc they should be earning less). Does this make me against socialism or communism?

Thanks

[The Idler]

I'm shocked too, but by your naivety

1. As Marx stated in the German Ideology
   "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas,
   i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch."
2. Socialism is not a moral ethical case. Socialism is scientific.

[Sotionov]

If a socialist says "capitalism should be abolished" that's a plain ethical statement, and argumenting it is neccessarily appeal to some ethical theory. There is simply can be no argument in favour of socialism or communism that isn't based on some form of some deontological or consequentialist ethical idea.

[adipocere]

But it's only this year I've realised how outrageously selfish conservatives are.

That's the first step.

Surely this is some kind of personality disorder?

It certainly seems that way. However, I think many of them result from a combination of low-average intelligence, bad early education and a very traditional upbringing. The more clever ones are sociopaths.

2] In a society, I believe that there shouldn't be large gaps between classes. However I do think gaps should exist because I believe someone who builds spaceships or does brain surgery deserves to be paid more than the retail worker (who should be paid fairly of course but nonetheless in proportion to the education required for the role, the value of the job etc they should be earning less). Does this make me against socialism or communism?

I'm going to skip to number 2. This is one of the most fundamental and heavily indoctrinated values in the US - and it is something you should spend time thinking critically about.

How many times have you needed a spaceship? How many times did you need brain surgery? Chances are (I hope about the brain surgery part) the answer is 0 and will always be 0 and is 0 for the vast majority of the worlds population. On the other hand how often do you need a retail clerk or rely on the work of farmer? What is actually more valuable to you and most of society? The idea that highly educated puffs are somehow more intrinsically valuable is a myth they need people to believe to continue being overpaid and basically useless. If it has to do with time spent learning to do something...anybody with a craft or skill has to spend a lot of time learning it to be any good at it - we just have been taught to have no respect for people who are good at necessary things.

Paid education is another thing - who's to say this surgeon and engineer are any more talented or intelligent then anyone else - their family just had the means to pay for the education, which is pretty much exactly how the education system works in the US. Why shouldn't higher education be free? Because it would level the playing field.

This is all fairly lightweight. If you were against socialism or communism you wouldn't be here. I wouldn't worry about labels yet, you still need deprogramming.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Forgive The Idler for lashing out. This forum is full of bitter motherfuckers, and we all take it out on newbies some times.

A few honest ones admitted there were disadvantages though, but stuck with the "they should stop being lazy" argument. So I mentioned how there are more unemployed people than there are jobs available, so there would also be people out of work thus unable to earn and needing help. Without help they'd live in poor conditions or worse starve.

I'd say it's worth going a step further here: Let's turn the tables and point out who's really lazy - the rich. Literally, the vast profits of capitalists aren't produced by nose-to-the-grindstone - they're produced by other people putting their noses to grindstone, and the act of "owning" the product of others' labour. So, like, next time this comes up, ask how many condo towers Donald Trump has built with his own hands. Ask if Bill Gates spends his days desperately coding and troubleshooting. Ask if anyone has ever seen the CEO of their company driving a forklift around the warehouse, let along producing any of the things in it.

Their response was basically "why is it my problem?" or "why should I be forced to help them?"

Well, unless the people in question are pretty well off, it's ultimately in their own interests - it's our problem too. When we end up counting quarters after paying rent, bills, etc. at the end of the month, it's because of the relative global power of the capitalist class. The meaningless and soul-sucking individualism of life in the "first world" is paid for by the violence and exploitation of the "third world". The problems of the people sewing our sneakers are certainly specific, but they're not unrelated to our problems.

Of course, if the people you're talking to are rich, it's a different question. Asking "Why?" in a situation of "force" misses the point: and to be clear, they should be forced. Their ill-gotten wealth, based on centuries of colonial genocide, forced labour, repression of women, etc. should be reappropriated from them by whatever means is at hand.

Are these people unable to empathize? How selfish can someone be where they ignore vulnerable people and just focus on themselves.

Ideology is a powerful thing - they've been taught all their lives that their decadent luxury is theirs by right of conquest, by virtue of their moral superiority (democracy! freedom!), and their unique merits. Of course, upon any reasonable examination this is bullshit, but it's amazing how easy it is to lie to yourself when your entire way of life is staked on it.

1] Difference between communism and socialism?

Well, most people who are sympathetic to, or have a general understanding of, communism will tell you that it describes a classless, stateless society with common ownership on the principle of "from each according to their means, to each according to their needs".

Socialism is more difficult. It obviously has a popular usage, in which it generally describes state ownership of the means of production (again, to various degrees depending on who you're talking to). On the radical left it generally describes either "the lower phase of communism" during which some aspects of capitalist society persist, or a distinct, pre-communist phase during which the working class and its party have seized political power, and are in the process of developing the means to create communism.

2] In a society, I believe that there shouldn't be large gaps between classes. However I do think gaps should exist because I believe someone who builds spaceships or does brain surgery deserves to be paid more than the retail worker (who should be paid fairly of course but nonetheless in proportion to the education required for the role, the value of the job etc they should be earning less). Does this make me against socialism or communism?

Well, it raises the question of "Why?"
After all, what good is a brain surgeon if nobody grows food for them eat? How does a person become a brain surgeon without somebody to build the university where they study? How is brain surgery possible without machinists to make the surgical equipment? What good is brain surgery without custodial staff to ensure the cleanliness of the hospital? How does the surgeon get to work every day without people to clean and maintain the streets?
Further, in this society, who gets to become a brain surgeon? Is it the most intelligent people who receive education? Of course not! University educations are provided to those with the money to pay for them, to those who received the best early educations and went to the best high schools, and who conform most closely to the expectations of bourgeois society. Who is to say that the janitor couldn't be the surgeon if they hadn't switched places in childhood? Does all this mean that the brain surgeon's children ought to grow up with the opportunities of their parents, and likewise, the janitors children with a pretty good shot at becoming janitors?
And to bring it back around, "brain surgery" is irrelevant if I die from unsanitary conditions because everyone said "Janitors? Fuck 'em!"

[Glitchcraft]

If a socialist says "capitalism should be abolished" that's a plain ethical statement, and argumenting it is neccessarily appeal to some ethical theory. There is simply can be no argument in favour of socialism or communism that isn't based on some form of some deontological or consequentialist ethical idea.

you really couldn't find an easier way to say this?

"argumenting it is neccessarily appeal to some ethical theory. "
what?

[Popular Front of Judea]

Bicycle Repair Man | Monty Python

[Polaris]

1] Difference between communism and socialism?

Marx used the terms interchangeably to describe both the first phase and higher phase of communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx&#39;s_...ges_of_history for more info. Yep, I linked to Wikipedia.) Lenin however associated the lower phase of communism with the term socialism, which at least in his environment was commonly used in that manner.

But when Lassalle, having in view such a social order (usually called socialism, but termed by Marx the first phase of communism), says that this is "equitable distribution", that this is "the equal right of all to an equal product of labor", Lassalle is mistaken and Marx exposes the mistake.

"Hence, the equal right," says Marx, in this case still certainly conforms to "bourgeois law", which,like all law, implies inequality. All law is an application of an equal measure to different people who in fact are not alike, are not equal to one another. That is why the "equal right" is violation of equality and an injustice. In fact, everyone, having performed as much social labor as another, receives an equal share of the social product (after the above-mentioned deductions).

But people are not alike: one is strong, another is weak; one is married, another is not; one has more children, another has less, and so on. And the conclusion Marx draws is:

"... With an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, the right instead of being equal would have to be unequal."

Anyway, Lenin goes on into more detail about the differences between socialism and communism. I would recommend checking that out, it's published online from various sources like this one: http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni...1917/staterev/. I would say that a major difference is the role of the state-- communism is stateless, socialism not so much. Different people interpret Marx in different ways-- some would say that the DotP is an altogether separate from communism, capitalist phase, while others say that while a society is under DotP is considered socialist.

You should also note that the term socialism has accumulated a much broader meaning over the years.

A famous phrase of Marx's is:

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

Whereas socialism generally goes more along the lines to each according to his contribution (see labor vouchers, etc.)

[cyu]

From http://www.revleft.com/vb/proof-plut...387/index.html

high school educated participants proved to be better able to accurately identify the emotions in facial expressions relative to college educated participants.

individuals manipulated to feel they were of lower social class performed better in the Task which requires that participants identify emotions

lower-income individuals were more likely to help a distressed partner by taking on a larger proportion of the workload

lowerclass participants showed higher trait levels of attention to others’ needs relative to their upper-class counterparts.

people in positions of power respond with less compassion

Obhi and his fellow researchers took participants and randomly put them in the mindset of feeling either powerful or powerless. The powerless group was asked to write about a time they depended on others for help. The powerful group wrote about times they were calling the shots, and they knew it. (There was a control group who wrote about something else entirely.)

Then everybody watched a simple video. In it, an anonymous hand squeezes a rubber ball

while the video ran, Obhi's team tracked the participants' brains, looking at a region called the mirror system. The mirror system contains neurons that become active both when you squeeze a rubber ball and when you watch a stranger squeeze a rubber ball. the mirror system places you inside a stranger's head. you can also begin to understand the motivations another person has. Understanding what another person wants and doesn't want is a key component of developing empathy.

The researchers found that the mirror system was tuned down by power. What we're finding is power diminishes all varieties of empathy.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Hi

welcome.

But it's only this year I've realised how outrageously selfish conservatives are.

I was arguing with some about welfare. A few of them were delusional about there being a level playing field and suggested poor people have the same chance of success and rich people.

A few honest ones admitted there were disadvantages though, but stuck with the "they should stop being lazy" argument. So I mentioned how there are more unemployed people than there are jobs available, so there would also be people out of work thus unable to earn and needing help. Without help they'd live in poor conditions or worse starve.

Their response was basically "why is it my problem?" or "why should I be forced to help them?"

So people should suffer because they were unfortunate to be born into a bad situation?!

Are these people unable to empathize? How selfish can someone be where they ignore vulnerable people and just focus on themselves.

Any discussion I have with conservatives tends to turn into them justifying their selfishness.

I then tried to research why so many of them thought this way. Surely this is some kind of personality disorder?

no I don't think this is due to anything inherent at all; in addition I'd argue that liberals and conservatives are probably more or less equal in lack of genuine action and actual meaningful concern on these issues - how they respond to it just tends to be different.

Many conservative Christians give to charity, many liberals give to charity... In fact common people give more of their own money away proportionately than the rich for all their philanthropy. If you're a multimillionaire, then $10,000 is about a quarter to you, funding some university is like getting a magazine subscription, buying a candidate or political office for yourself is like buying a new couch.

At any rate, I think the problem comes in because under capitalism, joblessness on some level, poverty, etc are systemic. So welfare can certainly make lives better, but it can't solve the problem, charity might help a but, but that's all.

So add to this a more specifically neoliberal world... Where social spending AND wages and benefits are cut... Politicians and the media can pit people against each other and have them fight over crumbs while more and more of the whole cake goes to the top.

These people say what they believe with such conviction that I find myself wondering if I was wrong to believe humans naturally create societies to HELP EACH OTHER???

nothing wrong, and people generally have lived this way. But in early societies, the collective effort was required to produce for the whole group; in capitalism, our collective productive effort is controlled by a tiny group of rich and powerful people. The daily responsibilities have been privatized to the home or the individual. So when families and individuals are struggling, it tends to increase competition, not a sense of solidarity inherently. It takes effort to develop that sense that we can rely on each other instead of competing (personal responcibility means it's YOUR job to care for YOU, fuck the other person). Like in the above post, however, similar shared experiences and hardships can also produce the potential to develop some sense of solidarity rather than isolation and alienation. This is why socialists and social anarchists try and organize with other workers... To help encourage this class solidarity and collective struggle for our common interests.

[The Idler]

It's not personal, but I'm fed up with lowest common denominator conservative bashing. Socialism is scientific, not an appeal to morality.

[Comrade Jacob]

1] Difference between communism and socialism?

Answer (1)
Socialism is the economic system in which to reach communism.

2] In a society, I believe that there shouldn't be large gaps between classes. However I do think gaps should exist because I believe someone who builds spaceships or does brain surgery deserves to be paid more than the retail worker (who should be paid fairly of course but nonetheless in proportion to the education required for the role, the value of the job etc they should be earning less). Does this make me against socialism or communism?

Answer (2)
You are against communism but not socialism because if in a socialist system classes are totally gone then so would the state. (Then you have reached communism). I dislike the argument of "They have a more "important" jobs they should get more" The reason behind that is I would rather have someone operating or treating me and people who just advance humanity to a good degree should be doing it because they want to help me not because they want to be able to have people below them.

[RA89]

Thanks for all the replies guys

How many times have you needed a spaceship? How many times did you need brain surgery? Chances are (I hope about the brain surgery part) the answer is 0 and will always be 0 and is 0 for the vast majority of the worlds population. On the other hand how often do you need a retail clerk or rely on the work of farmer? What is actually more valuable to you and most of society? The idea that highly educated puffs are somehow more intrinsically valuable is a myth they need people to believe to continue being overpaid and basically useless. If it has to do with time spent learning to do something...anybody with a craft or skill has to spend a lot of time learning it to be any good at it - we just have been taught to have no respect for people who are good at necessary things.

Paid education is another thing - who's to say this surgeon and engineer are any more talented or intelligent then anyone else - their family just had the means to pay for the education, which is pretty much exactly how the education system works in the US. Why shouldn't higher education be free? Because it would level the playing field.

Thar is a very fair point about nothing being possible unless people did all the so called small jobs too. But then I think, if people knew that no matter what job they did they would all be paid equal, wouldn't that put people off from doing more difficult tasks and instead doing the bare minimum?
It seems like this system of equal wage for everyone would heavily rely on people pursuing certain very important jobs out of love for academia since they'd be no added incentive of higher earnings? I think many people are money motivated so there could be a severe shortage of people in jobs that require more time/effort/studying.

If all education was free (same standard for everyone) wouldn't that create a level playing field thus justifying higher wage for certain jobs?

Or is the thinking here that for example once people start dying, people will automatically gravitate towards roles such as doctors and eventually we'll have all the people in all the roles we need?

I'd say it's worth going a step further here: Let's turn the tables and point out who's really lazy - the rich. Literally, the vast profits of capitalists aren't produced by nose-to-the-grindstone - they're produced by other people putting their noses to grindstone, and the act of "owning" the product of others' labour. So, like, next time this comes up, ask how many condo towers Donald Trump has built with his own hands. Ask if Bill Gates spends his days desperately coding and troubleshooting. Ask if anyone has ever seen the CEO of their company driving a forklift around the warehouse, let along producing any of the things in it.

Of course, if the people you're talking to are rich, it's a different question. Asking "Why?" in a situation of "force" misses the point: and to be clear, they should be forced. Their ill-gotten wealth, based on centuries of colonial genocide, forced labour, repression of women, etc. should be reappropriated from them by whatever means is at hand.

I read this quote from another discussion somewhere, slightly related was wondering what you make of this statement (he was told slavery wasn't the primary reason why America rose to power so quickly)

"america didnt even rise to power until the late industrial era, and slavery had been long abolished by then... we DID have lots of cheap labor in the irish and freed blacks though, if thats what you mean... natural resources and smart investors coupled with industrial genius is what led america to prosperity"

or if you could just expand upon "ill-gotten wealth" that would be greatly appreciated.

Well, it raises the question of "Why?"
After all, what good is a brain surgeon if nobody grows food for them eat? How does a person become a brain surgeon without somebody to build the university where they study? How is brain surgery possible without machinists to make the surgical equipment? What good is brain surgery without custodial staff to ensure the cleanliness of the hospital? How does the surgeon get to work every day without people to clean and maintain the streets?
Further, in this society, who gets to become a brain surgeon? Is it the most intelligent people who receive education? Of course not! University educations are provided to those with the money to pay for them, to those who received the best early educations and went to the best high schools, and who conform most closely to the expectations of bourgeois society. Who is to say that the janitor couldn't be the surgeon if they hadn't switched places in childhood? Does all this mean that the brain surgeon's children ought to grow up with the opportunities of their parents, and likewise, the janitors children with a pretty good shot at becoming janitors?
And to bring it back around, "brain surgery" is irrelevant if I die from unsanitary conditions because everyone said "Janitors? Fuck 'em!"

Please scroll up and read my response to adipocere, where I asked where the incentive for pursuing certain careers would come from without high wages as a motivation.

Marx used the terms interchangeably to describe both the first phase and higher phase of communism <link> for more info. Yep, I linked to Wikipedia.) Lenin however associated the lower phase of communism with the term socialism, which at least in his environment was commonly used in that manner.

Anyway, Lenin goes on into more detail about the differences between socialism and communism. I would recommend checking that out, it's published online from various sources like this one: <link>. I would say that a major difference is the role of the state-- communism is stateless, socialism not so much. Different people interpret Marx in different ways-- some would say that the DotP is an altogether separate from communism, capitalist phase, while others say that while a society is under DotP is considered socialist.

You should also note that the term socialism has accumulated a much broader meaning over the years.

A famous phrase of Marx's is:
Whereas socialism generally goes more along the lines to each according to his contribution (see labor vouchers, etc.)

Thanks for the links, before I commit myself to reading, can I just ask if that is the best place for me to start learning? Usually when I read stuff from this site I begin reading and within a few sentences I see a whole heap of terms which I need to read separate long articles to understand (and some of those articles contain terms which require other articles to understand) and it becomes frustrating. So could you point me in the direction of some basic text to build a foundation of knowledge with please?

I read in another thread someone was recommended to start with Karl Marx Works 1844 Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, would this be a good start? I'd prefer to read one book at a time ideally.


@ cyu Thanks for sharing very interesting.

welcome.

no I don't think this is due to anything inherent at all; in addition I'd argue that liberals and conservatives are probably more or less equal in lack of genuine action and actual meaningful concern on these issues - how they respond to it just tends to be different.

Many conservative Christians give to charity, many liberals give to charity... In fact common people give more of their own money away proportionately than the rich for all their philanthropy. If you're a multimillionaire, then $10,000 is about a quarter to you, funding some university is like getting a magazine subscription, buying a candidate or political office for yourself is like buying a new couch.

At any rate, I think the problem comes in because under capitalism, joblessness on some level, poverty, etc are systemic. So welfare can certainly make lives better, but it can't solve the problem, charity might help a but, but that's all.

So add to this a more specifically neoliberal world... Where social spending AND wages and benefits are cut... Politicians and the media can pit people against each other and have them fight over crumbs while more and more of the whole cake goes to the top.

Why would you say they are equal in terms of meaningful concern? I understand some people are liberals because their parents are, and some people are conservatives because their parents are, but assuming we're dealing with genuine liberals and conservatives doesn't the whole "I got mine now you go get yours" attitude of the conservatives show they are not as concerned with helping people?
I fully accept conservatives give to charity, but they know damn well if people decide not to donate (likely in hard economic times such as these) then to attack things like welfare surely implies selfishness?

Regarding the bold bit, so what would you suggest needs to be done?

I understand if in an ideal world there were plenty of jobs and booming economy we wouldn't need welfare but the reality now is we do, so until we can sort out the bigger issues it can solve the problem temporarily?

1] Difference between communism and socialism?

Answer (1)
Socialism is the economic system in which to reach communism.

2] In a society, I believe that there shouldn't be large gaps between classes. However I do think gaps should exist because I believe someone who builds spaceships or does brain surgery deserves to be paid more than the retail worker (who should be paid fairly of course but nonetheless in proportion to the education required for the role, the value of the job etc they should be earning less). Does this make me against socialism or communism?

Answer (2)
You are against communism but not socialism because if in a socialist system classes are totally gone then so would the state. (Then you have reached communism). I dislike the argument of "They have a more "important" jobs they should get more" The reason behind that is I would rather have someone operating or treating me and people who just advance humanity to a good degree should be doing it because they want to help me not because they want to be able to have people below them.

Please also see my response to the first quote in this post. I think as humans any combination of money/pride/status can motivate us, feels like we'd be repressing human nature by trying to eliminate that aspect of ourselves? Again I'd like to reinforce that I don't think the gap should ever become large, but enough to ensure the important yet difficult roles are fulfilled by society.


Again thanks for replies everyone.

[Sotionov]

Socialism is scientific, not an appeal to morality.

Do you advocate establishment of socialism? Or are you indifferent to whether there's capitalism or socialism? If you do advocate socialism, please answer me- why? Can you state your reasoning as to why capitalism should be abolished and socialism established?

[Polaris]

Thanks for the links, before I commit myself to reading, can I just ask if that is the best place for me to start learning? Usually when I read stuff from this site I begin reading and within a few sentences I see a whole heap of terms which I need to read separate long articles to understand (and some of those articles contain terms which require other articles to understand) and it becomes frustrating. So could you point me in the direction of some basic text to build a foundation of knowledge with please?

I read in another thread someone was recommended to start with Karl Marx Works 1844 Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, would this be a good start? I'd prefer to read one book at a time ideally.

Were my links a good place to start? Probably not
I was sloppy in my presentation for a someone new to radical leftism, sorry! If you are completely unlearned in communism, then I would not recommend reading any Lenin. Save that for once you've got a handle on 'pure' Marxism and are trying to find your tendency. Personally, I began with The Communist Manifesto and then Das Kapital. Protip: Don't do that. The Communist Manifesto is a good place to start, but reading Das Kapital with no economic background is a world of pain (not to scare you away from it-- it is essential, just give it some time.)

Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 sounds good. Note that you can find that online at http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...ts/preface.htm, marxists.org has a lot of good reading material if you can stand to stare at your computer screen like me. Q made a nice list previously you might want to check out.

Perhaps Marx's Critique of the Gotha Program?
Wage Labor and Capital - Marx
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific - Engels
Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State - Engels
A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy - Marx

Definitely try out some anarchism (even if you know you're not interested, it's nice to get a feel for it).
The Conquest of Bread - Kropotkin
The ABC of Anarchism - Berkman
God and the State - Bakunin

Don't forget some history, preferably after you're solid on theory. Actually, I would recommend reading individual's theoretical works along with books that describe the movement they were in, or their biography. E.g., read works of Russian Revolutionaries while (or directly before) you are learning about the Russian Revolution.
The People's History of the United States - Zinn
A History of the Russian Revolution - Trotsky
Ten Days that Shook the World - Reed
The Civil War in France - Marx
[insert books on Spanish Civil War*, German Revolution, Cuban Revolution, Feminism, Black Panthers, Cultural Revolution, etc etc. I'm not going to go through everything ]

Yes, read Luxemburg, Trotsky, Lenin, Kautsky, Stalin, Mao, Hoxha, Bordiga, et al. After Marx. When the time comes, just do a little searching to figure out what their most important works are.

Oh, and I would also recommend The Motorcycle Diaries (Che Guevara, journal of his travels around South America in his early years, doesn't seem to be online) and Homage to Catalonia (George Orwell, first-hand account of Spanish Civil War*).

[RedMaterialist]

RA89, I used to have the same problem arguing with conservatives, i.e. trying to convince them to do the right thing. The problem is that you are trying to reform them; I think what you need to do is let them know that you intend, not to reform them, or point out their immorality, but to destroy them. Not violently, of course. Marxists intend to deny conservatives, capitalists, etc., the ability to exploit working people, and then to suppress and destroy the capitalist class. And the only way to do that is through a revolution, peacefully, one hopes. Tell your friends that you will see them on their way to the guillotine, metaphorically speaking, of course.

BTW, I would start by reading The Communist Manifesto, a lot.

[RedMaterialist]

I think as humans any combination of money/pride/status can motivate us, feels like we'd be repressing human nature by trying to eliminate that aspect of ourselves?

Humans lived for hundreds of thousands of years (Marx called it primitive communism) without the use of money to purchase their pride and status. Their pride and status were achieved by their own personality, work and character. Capitalism has made us believe that everything is for sale, including our humanity, even to the point of believing that the desire and greed for money is a part of human nature.

[The Idler]

Do you advocate establishment of socialism? Or are you indifferent to whether there's capitalism or socialism? If you do advocate socialism, please answer me- why? Can you state your reasoning as to why capitalism should be abolished and socialism established?

I advocate the establishment of socialism because capitalism has been tested and failed but continues because people still support it. I don't intend to be one of the supporters of capitalism. Nothing moral or utopian about it.

[Sotionov]

You did't answer my question. Can you state the concrete reason because of which you think capitalism should be abolished?

[The Idler]

It has been tried and failed. Can you state the concrete reason because of which you think capitalism should be abolished without an appeal to morality?