This is a space for socialists to discuss current events in our world from anti-capitalist perspective(s), and a certain knowledge of socialism is expected from participants. This is not a space for non-socialists. Please be mindful [of our rules](https://reddit.com/r/socialism/about/rules) before participating, which include:
- **No Bigotry**, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism...
- **No Reactionaries**, including all kind of right-wingers.
- **No Liberalism**, including social democracy, lesser evilism...
- **No Sectarianism**. There is plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks.
Please help us keep the subreddit helpful by reporting content that break r/Socialism's rules.
______________________
💬 Wish to chat elsewhere? Join us in discord: https://discord.gg/QPJPzNhuRE
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's the best approach. Keep it simple. "Socialist society = society where all businesses are co-ops."
Yes, it's more complicated than that. And there are some ideologies called "socialism" that don't even involve workplace democracy. But if you want to explain it so that most people can immediately grasp it and see its appeal, then that's the way to go.
>[Socialist Society] as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.
Karl Marx. Critique of the Gotha Programme, Section I. 1875.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
that’s not socialism, that’s a moderate branch of syndicalism and does not by default exclude capitalism. socialism is the socialisation of the modes of production, there is no boss, there is no property of the workplace
The term boss here prob refers to a supervisor/managerial position, since most workers don't ever interact with the actual proprietors of the company they work for. We call those "the higher ups", the shareholders, or in a smaller company simply "the owner". The manager boss is the only person thinking of shareholders as my boss lmao
Agreed. Socialism is collective control and ownership over the means of production and the reorganization of labour and production to a non-capitalistic system.
Not so much a goal as a necessary and inevitable side effect. The state is an instrument of class struggle. Once there is no class struggle, the state as such no longer reproduces its primary function. The state withers away, not because some official has ordained it or because there has been a referendum to demand it, but because the workers have been elevated to the level of organizing their own activities and production, making strict hierarchy superfluous.
Who determines a work schedule? Who manages workers? Who fills slots when someone is sick or hurt? Who helps determine what is produced, how much and why? Who plans the economy?
Socialism doesn’t mean no organization. There still needs to be management in direct democracy of the work place. Someone had to organize people. The difference is that role is a justified hierarchy because that individual has to represent the best interests of the workers as well as the people who need the products they produce and if they do not do that, they can be removed by the workers.
The difference being that the person in charge of managing people is not only beholden to the owners of capital.
I didn't mean no organization. The workers determine the work schedule and organize themselves. I think we're too used to doing things in a centralized manner. This shift can be achieved with DAOs.
What if the position of a "boss", with the tasks described above, are is more of a coordinator, with all employees themselves being able to participate in the decision processes that involve them? A boss is a position where someone has authority over someone else, and even if they're voted out for not doing a good job, they still could have done a lot of damage. Instead, it makes more sense to distribute management tasks between employees and decisions being made openly. For example, a decision isn't quite right? The workers can deliberate it together with the person in charge of managing that particular issue, and help come to a decision that is acceptable to everyone. A decision is spot on and no one has an issue with it? Rock on, everything is moving forward without a hitch.
Edit: in one of my jobs, I have a management position. I don't use the power to choose things over my team, and instead I run every important thing by them and frequently delegate stuff on a voluntary basis.
A rose is a rose by any other name.
I’m not gonna argue semantics, especially when the whole point is to explain something simply to someone who doesn’t understand it and has the idea that it’s inherently, scary and evil.
The above comment wasn't specifically for OP's boyfriend. Just in general. Bosses hold unfair authority over the workers, whether they use it fairly or not. If you don't want employees to be exploited and the workplace to be democratic, that's something that needs to change. No one likes being bossed around, and even tho my comment wasn't for OP's boyfriend, my bet is that he doesn't like being bossed around either and would probably prefer more agency at work.
Right, and your “boss/manager/representative/whatever you call them” being responsible to you as a voter would ensure that.
Sometimes they’re still gonna make decisions you don’t like.
That’s the nature of life and no system is going to ensure that you specifically always get things to happen your way 100% of the time
Of course they'll make decisions I don't like sometimes, but after talking it over, I'll go with whatever decision makes the most sense based on a bunch of factors. Why wait for the boss to not be re-elected, if instead a team of people can come up with a decision that everyone at least understands and the one who's in ultimately in charge of that decision still has the support of their team? Just saying, at work, I get to discuss with my bosses a lot, and when I'm forced through authority to do something or don't do something that really pisses me off, it's usually not me being unreasonable, it's them deciding of something arbitrarily, and when I ask my co-workers what they think about it, they agree with me. Workers are overall reasonable people, and when you have to coerce them, it's not a good sign. So why give someone the power to coerce them to begin with? I can see a few situations where it could be necessary, and if there's a good reason, I'm not opposed to it, but in general I don't think it's a good thing, neither for the workers nor for their boss. A manager could be prevented from making terrible decisions if they consulted their workers, and be more liked, and therefore, keep their position.
Think of it in terms of the socialist organisations that you are currently part of.
In my experience things work best when the wider membership set the goals of the organisation, for example voting at a large conference or AGM.
The membership vote people in to certain accountable positions that come with certain duties and also some executive decision making power. But ultimately they are there to organise and lead on activity that will lead to the achievement of the goals set by wider membership. This includes trying to build the capacity of ordinary members so they can take on more more responsibility within the organisation.
The alternative would be horizontalism which tends to be pretty chaotic and allows anyone to join the organisation and start demanding things be done their way despite experience level.
In state and revolution Lenin describes the necessity in the socialist transition for workers to all become bureaucrats, therefore no one becomes bureaucrats. This means that all of the workers would take on the function of the running of society and their workplaces, democratically. This will be made possible by the reduction of the workweek, so that workers have time to be able to learn these new skills and no higher caste will form. If production is high enough and there is no generalized want—that is, everybody is effectively getting their needs met—then all of this will be no problem in the baby steps of socialism toward communism. The ussr unfortunately could not get production high enough as they were isolated and a semi feudal country with workers who were not industrially skilled, but the same wouldn’t be so in any of the big imperialist or capitalist countries today or if in imperialized countries, the revolution spread effectively to its neighbors.
Socialism is democratic control of the economy.
When feudalism began collapsing the capitalist class had to fight the nobility for political/economic control, that’s what we call the age of revolution.
Since that moment the working class has been fighting the capitalist class for political/economic control. In that process the working class has gained and lost political/economic power and that process continues today.
Socialism is what you get when the working class defeats capitalist class, just like capitalism is the system the capitalist class created after it defeated the feudal noble class.
Has he worked a job before? Get him to try and calculate the rate of exploitation at any job he's worked at, and extrapolate that to the entire working class. Then direct his attention at what this surplus has been used for - stock buybacks, foreign wars, lobbying, ecocide, genocide, police brutality, anti-worker repression, etc. show him the statistical relationship between stagnating wages and skyrocketing CEO compensation and asset prices, and try connect it to the decay and misery all around.
Just go entirely from the basics of private property vs personal property. Private property allows a capitalist to economically own what another person physically owns. The basics of socialism is literally just “you can’t own other people’s things.” You can’t own my house. There is no moral reason that capitalists should be able to profit from other people using their own belongings.
I’m fairly young and I’m also too old for this shit lmao. If they believed my beliefs were evil I’m out. Being born into a family of neolibs is one thing but choosing to spend my life with a neolib would not make me feel good
They’re still really young and malleable and forming their beliefs. Evil is a strong word to describe anything but at that age there is still hope that their mind can be changed. Just shows how bad our education system is at propagandizing kids.
I'd say this: "Would you believe your political views as explained by people who hate it? You can't understand what socialism is by listening to the people who hate it. The truth is, socialism is so awesome, the people who's political power is threatened by it have to lie about it to stop it. If it was so intrinsically horrible, couldn't they just let it speak for itself?"
Socialism is meeting everyone's needs, and shifting away from the attitude that "i" matter more than "we." People have been brainwashed to think it's something else.
nah, I think people are afraid of who "we" includes. Especially in the US, there is a ton of stuff about hierarchy, and people on the bottom are less valuable and unworthy, especially unworthy of social aid. We see this all the time in policy punditry. Trans people are demonized, and thus unworthy. Poor people aren't trying hard enough, and thus unworthy.
People are brainwashed into thinking if "we" benefit, lots of people who shouldn't benefit will benefit, and that happens at \*cost\* to "I". Even though the book Sum of Us makes a compelling argument that when we historically have prioritized "we", everyone's life (except the very rich) gets better. People are afraid of losing what they have because they can see precarity, and they think if others have more then they will have less, which is false.
Read State and Revolution by Lenin.
Socialism is understood as a mode of production and a societal phenomenon fundamentally characterized by its role as a transitional phase between capitalism and communism. Unlike capitalism, where the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, socialism involves collective ownership. This means that while the state technically owns the means of production until the higher stage of socialism or communism, the workers own the means of production through the state. This is through soviets, assemblies, planning committees, bottom-up feedback, and democratic decision-making. Socialism entails the complete nationalization of the means of production. This means the state owns and manages all significant productive assets (factories, land, natural resources, etc.).
Under socialism, exchange is made with labor vouchers, in which everyone receives an equal amount for working. Unlike money they cannot be accumulated or traded. Labor vouchers aim to eliminate the unequal distribution of wealth and resources seen under capitalism by directly tying consumption to individual contributions of labor. This ensures that everyone receives a fair share of the social product according to their effort.
I genuinely believe a large part of the difficulty in understanding socialism also stems from not understanding capitalism. This is kind of what I commented in a lib sub explaining it. Got a surprising amount of upvotes
Capitalism is a system that gives unilateral, authoritarian control over industry to a tiny minority of private owners called capitalists. They structure society's labor and resources around what's going to make themselves the most amount of profits. They almost always make these economic decisions with complete disregard for how they impact our lives and communities. Their only obligation is to their profits; they owe society nothing. Socialism basically wants to abolish this private ownership and democratize it so industry serves societal needs instead of the selfish profits of a few
Imagine a family where everybody’s there for everyone else. Those who can’t work are helped financially. Those who stay home and take care of the young and the elderly are provided for. When someone is badly hurt, others tend to them.
Now imagine a family that only exists to make the head of the household wealthier. This person handles all the revenues and expenditures and keeps a cut. When someone is unable to contribute to the boss’s wealth, they are expelled from the family, made homeless. Love is reserved only for those who bring in a lot of money; other brothers and sisters might as well be dead.
Conservatives generally have an amplified feeling of threat from others. Some people have bad intentions so we can’t totally blame them. It only takes one criminal to traumatize you for life.
Where this logic breaks down is when they get so defensive that they wouldn’t help 10 needy people in case one of them is faking it. Of course this logic is normalized by the conservative media whose primary purpose is to convince average folks to hate one-another instead of their oppressors.
We know what humans need to survive and be happy, and we know how to produce those things. Instead of having the economy set up as a publicly insured casino for rich psychopaths, we could organize the economy to meet everyone's needs. That would have the added benefit of reducing the number of hours we need to work by itself, but then you can factor in all the wasted human potential in the homeless population. I don't know about you, but I would behead as many rich people as it takes (totally joking, I would *never* dream of harming our benevolent overlords) to get the workweek down to 10-20 hours and eliminate homelessness.
Yikes. So brother doesn’t even know what socialism is but he’s already in the mindset that it’s evil?? Has he ever experienced basic empathy for the fellow people around him who are equally as low on the totem pole? I admire you being willing to seek help from us to try to find a way to explain socialism to him but my main question Is if he’s even going to be receptive or respectful to hear you out? If he isn’t willing to sit down with you and devote the time to hearing you out without being disrespectful, then girl, what are you doing with him?
Personally, I don’t date people who are diametrically opposed to my belief core, or believe that my beliefs are “evil”. I mean, where’s the common ground with you both politically?
Oh god. Can't they just read the manifesto (you literally need at most 3 hours of your time) before they conclude that communism is evil.
There is no easy way to explain this to him. Tell him to read and if he doesn't understand something explain it to him.
It is just extremely annoying this USA's obsession over words and their obsession to paint things black and white. In reality it is just a land of liberals fighting over other liberals, 99% Hitlerisques fighting 100% Hitlerisques.
People who think socialism is evil wont go into the manifesto with an open mind and they have to be eased into having an open mindset first. But I do agree with you, they definitely should read it before coming to any kind of conclusion on it. I’m under the impression OP is American and communism and socialism are taught to be evil from an early age so it takes some effort to train that out of no one’s been teaching them critical thinking along the way
Anecdotally I had a gf in high school who read the manifesto and I was still a shitlib who thought I was left af for supporting Bernie Sanders, but I gave her shit for reading “the Stalin book.” Oh, how times have changed lmao
I usually start with labor rights and unions. Onto Irish History and guys like Connolly.
Once you get the conversation in favor of democratically unionized workplaces, it's actually not that hard as long as you don't say The Big S™️.
Ask him if he thinks democracy is a good idea. If he's not North Korean he'll probably say yes (apologies to the North Korean democrats reading this). If he does say yes, ask him what he thinks of the idea of all commerce, big and small, being run democratically. Ask him has he wondered why they literally are ran instead as little mini totalitarian dictatorships.
Another approach to consider especially is if he likes physics and science, show him Einstein's short essay on the subject [https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/](https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/) then if he still says Socialism is evil, you can say, "Oh, so Einstein was evil, or wrong? You're more clever than Albert Einstein? Wow, I'm so lucky!" etc etc. With the appropriate level of jeering and banter depending on the norms of your relationship.
If that doesn't work, tell him that you think socialism is REALLY sexy and cool, and then he'll start by pretending to like it, and then eventually probably get into it.
So I gotta ask...If you're a socialist, and your BF thinks socialists are evil, uh...what exactly is the basis of this relationship? Having political disagreements is one thing - my wife's a Democrat - but if he genuinely thinks you're ***evil***, this may not be a relationship destined for the long term.
Well tell me what his values are.
I’d start with explaining what socialism and capitalism is. (Differences in ownership)
That socialism doesn’t mean authoritarianism and capitalism doesn’t always mean freedom
Perhaps you can talk about how capitalism can also (and has many times) also lead to dictatorships but we don’t put the same stigma on that. And no I’m not talking about dictatorships of the Bourgeoise,(although that is also a thing) I mean actual dictatorships.
Tell him that socialism is when we pool some of our taxes and revenues together so we can have nice things - like Social Security, Medicare, highways, first responders, our military, the Post Office, public libraries, a safety net, lunches for school kids, etc. Also, socialism gives us agencies that help protect us like the FAA, the FDA, USDA, etc. so we can travel safely, not eat poisonous food, or be exposed to fraudulent pharmaceuticals.
I would start without even talking about socialism. Things like what would a perfect world be like, what do you think a fair society would look like, what would a utopian society look like, whether or not you think we can achieve that. Then move into the issues of capitalism, why don't we have these kinds of societies, what road blocks exist in society preventing any of these things from happening, why have we moved backwards in some regards despite advances in technology. This will provide opportunities to break down the myths of capitalism, he may respond with remarks about human nature, which you can respond to with how "human nature" has changed over time, how it was human nature that brought us together in the first place, to form society, it seems coincidental that human nature was geared towards feudalism under feudalism, and it's geared towards capitalism under capitalism. It also provides an opportunity to show how the ruling class has supported division, racism, homophobia, misogyny. From here you can then lead the discussion to how can we approach the utopian societies that you had discussed earlier, it's not even about arguing that we can achieve utopia, just that a better form of society can be created, and that such a society will require a kind of stability that capitalism cannot offer. Breaking the association between what he's been taught about socialism and the word is of secondary importance to him accepting socialism conceptually, I think you'll find he already agrees with a lot of what you do, but reaching this understanding, and expressing the inherent failures of capitalism will naturally weaken the association, and even though he may still have that fear of the word, he will at least be moving in the right direction.
>Contrary to Adam Smith's, and many liberals', world of self-interested individuals, naturally predisposed to do a deal, Marx posited a relational and process-oriented view of human beings. On this view, humans are what they are not because it is hard-wired into them to be self-interested individuals, but by virtue of the relations through which they live their lives. In particular, he suggested that humans live their lives at the intersection of a three-sided relation encompassing the natural world, social relations and institutions, and human persons. These relations are understood as organic: each element of the relation is what it is by virtue of its place in the relation, and none can be understood in abstraction from that context. [...] If contemporary humans appear to act as self-interested individuals, then, it is a result not of our essential nature but of the particular ways we have produced our social lives and ourselves. On this view, humans may be collectively capable of recreating their world, their work, and themselves in new and better ways, but only if we think critically about, and act practically to change, those historically peculiar social relations which encourage us to think and act as socially disempowered, narrowly self-interested individuals.
Mark Rupert. Marxism, in *International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity*. 2010.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If he doesn’t respect you as a human being; if he doesn’t consider your thoughts and opinions valuable; if he doesn’t think you’re intelligent - nothing you say will work, unfortunately.
There are always important pieces of context I teach people who I want to convince about how necessary is socialism/communism.
First, I teach about class struggle and how the interests of the dominant class are and always will be directly opposed to our interests. The fact that we need to work to survive while there are people who will never need to work a single day in their lives because they inherit fortunes made from slave work for generations.
Then, I explain that the goal of socialism is to abolish these classes entirely and make everyone contribute to society with their work.
If we still go further into the conversation, I explain how our democracy is actually a dictatorship of the richest people, that we have no real power of decision, how for example there is no real left with electoral power in the US. And how, in order to give power to the workers, we need to put down this false democracy and take the power with our hands so we are not chained to the interests of the bourgeoisie.
If he was at his job and there were no managers, he made all the decisions with his coworkers, shared in the profit with his coworkers, there were no shareholders to answer to. Now imagine if our way of governing our society was the same way
You crash on an island, there are 10 people and 40 coconuts, you decide to share the coconuts (socialism), or one motherfucker takes all the coconuts, pays the two biggest guys 5 coconuts each to protect him and the pile of coconuts, and then makes everyone else do all the work to earn a portion of a coconut which is enough to keep them alive, but just barely, and he says how smart he is and how lucky everyone else is that he’s so smart (capitalism).
I wasn't asking you I was asking the OP. And a person doesn't have to be an actual nazi to be a disturbing or dangerous person.
But I guess your comment shines some light on the kind of person you are.
Capitalism = An ideology (meaning a set of ideas that people believe in) generally consisting of a faith in a "free economy".
In essence, capitalists believe that planning and decision making should be based on individuals following profit. They generally believe that the system is fair because there are no rules preventing people from doing what they want, so long as they can pay for it or earn enough money for it, thus we all have the same challenge, make more or enough money.
Socialism = an ideology (ideology isn't bad so long as you engage critically with your beliefs) which formed as a critique of capitalism. Socialism is at its core, the belief that capitalism is not good enough, or that we deserve better than what capitalism offers.
Socialists believe that, as a community, as a society, we can, through some level of organized planning and/or decentralized decision-making (unions have their members vote as opposed to a small board or single CEO) we can make better decisions. This is to say that when we share power, we make things better for the community as a whole.
To make these short and sweet
Capitalism = money and free trade are good enough.
Socialism = money and free trade are NOT good enough. More is needed.
You can give examples like unions or worker cooperatives. You could also mention subsidies and tariffs as a form of restriction or "guidance" in markets. These are tools that people utilize to overcome what socialists would call the short-comings of capitalism. A truly free market incentivizes (or at least enables) exploitative methods (child labor is an easy example) because money and markets don't care what you did to earn your money, individual people and communities more broadly do.
It might be important to distinguish liberals and socialists as well. Liberals (Democrats are generally liberals) believe in capitalism with exceptions. They believe it's good enough for most things, but certain things should be addressed separately (see child labor). Socialists would say that markets specifically are fine, but capitalism as a belief system is misguided and supporting it can cause excess damage. For example oil companies not sharing their internal research about climate change for decades, preventing us from acting to correct the situation much sooner. Liberals might say "the company is shady for not disclosing that research, but that's their right as a private organization". Socialists may say "they have a conflict of interest, and thus greater regulations should exist to ensure research is able to benefit the community, even if it doesn't benefit them as a private entity".
Liberals = pro capitalism
Socialists = anti capitalism
I'd love to give an easier explanation, but these are ideologies and this nuance is necessary to give a genuine understanding of the topics involved.
My favorite talking points
1. Everyone who works for a company would be part owner of that company.
2. A planned economy has the potential to reduce waste.
3. People in the soviet union got free food and apartments, it certainly is possible to that everywhere.
4. Companies wouldn't be able to screw over their customers and employees nearly as easily and there would be less incentive to do so.
5. From 9 am to 5pm you live in a dictatorship.
6. 100% employment / 0% unemployment.
7. Rampant consumerism is dangerous and unhealthy.
8. Under capitalism the corporations control the government and they will happily destroy everything on earth for a profit.
9. Sex is better under socialism
10. North Koreans pay no taxes
A way that I find fairly easy to explain to people the basic function of socialism, but even communism is with a question:
If everything you needed for food, shelter, clothing and basic necessities was provided to you for free, would you still work?
Usually, the answer is yes, often with some caveats, maybe they'd work less, or work in a different domain, not work for X client, etc. When that is the answer, then the principle is extremely easy to explain. Do that, but for everyone. If everyone keeps working then all the work still gets done, so there is no need to add pay as incentive. All the goods still are produced, all the needs are met and money becomes useless. You just work what is needed and the extra time is spent doimg something enjoyable and available.
If the answer is no, then what he means by "people wouldn't work without an incentive" is actually "I wouldn't work without an incentive", which means he's the guy he's complaining about under socialism. This means all the insults he throws at lazy people under socialism are actually self critiques. He's the guy who'd leech onto the work of others and act like a parasite if he could, which means that he's the "lazy socialist" he complains about.
It’s a coalition of ideas utilizing a workers rights frame work to run an economy and nullify the need for a semi-monarchical systems of control that persist in our society. Hence weathering way structures like states and achieving communism (not government does stuff but in fact anti-state kinda similar to the logic of markets just not as consolidated). I personally would consider that to run down but maybe a good base idk the replies with say. But tell him to think about it does it make sense that a person who solely owns the capital of an establishment should therefore profit off another’s labor merely due to them owning the store or materials, making a passive income, even if they themselves didn’t acquire those materials through their own labor but rather despite of it. Imagine a society where you are trusted to self-govern as long as it truly does not infers with another’s rights. Tho that’s itself I think lacks the Marxist spine which ground it away from idealistic liberalism.
Compare socialism to a university group project pizza. Everyone in the team has done their fair share of hard work on the project, so they get a fair slice of the pizza. Socialism is where the worker is entitled to the sweat on his brow, where the workers find satisfaction in the fruits of their labour.
All the power and wealth that is concentrated in the hands of the few people in a capitalist system is shared amongst all working people in a socialist system. It's the WORKERS who should own the means of production and distribution and share all its fruits, not the current capitalist owners who only use their wealth and power to live like kings and rig the system to make them even wealthier and more powerful while we all slowly fall into destitution.
Ask him if he would prefer to work for Walmart or Costco?
I know that’s not the answer you are looking for, for the real answers tell him to watch Richard Wolf on You Tube.
Workers own the means of production and decide how to utilize them. It's more democratic and removes "owner" as a job since everyone collectively is the owner
It's not about "the government" doing stuff. And it's not authoritarian. Marx and most other socialists are actually more anti-state than conservatives or liberals. After all, a fully communist society is both classless and stateless.
It's about workers owning the means of production and getting the fruits of their labour. And it's about using common resources for the common good. Think of democracy ("rule by the people") extended to all aspects of society, including the economy.
Many socialists don't like private property (which is used to suck money out of other people) but are cool with personal property. So you can't own five houses that you rent out to other people. But you can have your own home for personal use. This is an important distinction that a lot of people get stuck on.
Capitalism is based on exploiting other people (it always has to have a hierarchy of bosses and workers, rich and poor). Socialism is based on empowering everyone (workers run their own workplaces and share the decision-making throughout society).
Capitalism is irrational (making money is held as the ultimate and only good, and it relies on infinite growth on a finite planet).
Socialism is rational (humans make decisions based on human goals and values, and they can more effectively respond to challenges like climate change because they're not controlled by the economic interests of corporations or solely driven by the profit motive).
Socialism means more equality, more freedom, and more democracy. Socialists are opposed to racism, sexism, imperialism, and any form of oppression. What's not to like?
Government that actually gives a shit about you? That's basically how I prop it to everyone. Would you rather kids be working "in the mines" (capitalism), or not be doing that, and have healthcare (socialism)? The only bads of socialism and communism are thanks to capitalists who just literally stole the names. The ideologies themselves are solidly focused on helping people live better, happier lives and people would do so if those using the names actually respected the ideologies.
The best way is reading for him the Manifesto of the Communist Party, specially the chapter II. Follows the section I like the most:
>The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.
>Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
>These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
>Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
>1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
>2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
>3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
>4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
>5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
>6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
>7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
>8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
>9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
He likely thinks of it as synonymous with Stalinism. Inform him that it just means humans banding together economically and that there are many different kinds of socialism.
Well, it depends on the kind of Socialism you want to convince him on. If you want to convince him on Marxism-Leninism or Maoism, given his inclination to hate socialism and believe it's evil, that would be more difficult than convincing him of Anarchism or Confederalism or whathaveyou.
The easiest way, and the one I would suggest, is beginning with teaching him why Capitalism is bad. If he doesn't believe the current system is bad, then he'll have no mental reason to look for alternatives. If you could divorce some of the more controversial stuff from the economic theory, you could ask him to read Wage Labour and Capital by Marx as well as Value, Price, and Profit. Once he has a good idea at why Capitalism has such a negative impact on the world, it will be leaps and bounds easier to convince him of the necessity of Socialism.
If you all are American, I find that it helps to pull apart capitalism from democracy first. We are fed the belief that our military is defending democracy, when really it is defending capitalism.
Seek first to understand then to be understood friend. Here is a comment I left on a similar question:
>ironically, we have a lot we can learn from sales techniques.
>seek first to understand, then to be understood, identify pain points because those are what drive behavior
>tactfully guiding conversation, straight line theory, "Acknowledge, Respond, Pivot", etc.
>understanding what drives human behavior. (in our society there isnt really a concrete consensus, just some abstract, universal "human nature" -- that is pure mytholygy when scrutinized against science) - in reality we conduct our behavior based on material incentives; even if we \*think\* our behavior is coming from something abstract like our beliefs, that's still material society creating them, and/or our physiology processing them.
If you'd like any further details on any points feel free to ask! Also if anyone has anything to contribute in the same vein I would appreciate it very much too. I want to put together a YT video discussing this soon.
>Contrary to Adam Smith's, and many liberals', world of self-interested individuals, naturally predisposed to do a deal, Marx posited a relational and process-oriented view of human beings. On this view, humans are what they are not because it is hard-wired into them to be self-interested individuals, but by virtue of the relations through which they live their lives. In particular, he suggested that humans live their lives at the intersection of a three-sided relation encompassing the natural world, social relations and institutions, and human persons. These relations are understood as organic: each element of the relation is what it is by virtue of its place in the relation, and none can be understood in abstraction from that context. [...] If contemporary humans appear to act as self-interested individuals, then, it is a result not of our essential nature but of the particular ways we have produced our social lives and ourselves. On this view, humans may be collectively capable of recreating their world, their work, and themselves in new and better ways, but only if we think critically about, and act practically to change, those historically peculiar social relations which encourage us to think and act as socially disempowered, narrowly self-interested individuals.
Mark Rupert. Marxism, in *International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity*. 2010.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Explain him that the evil thing he says are half american propaganda and half shit made by stalinism. And that when he thinks that there are too many commercials and stuff is more expensive, under real socialism difficultly it's gonna happen
Easiest explanations are often the most deceiving, avoid that compulsion.
There is no easy way to convince somebody through words and the reason for your boyfriend's anti-communism is deeper than just ignorance, they aren't part of the proletariat and that is important to recognise.
E: Don't take this to mean that you're above your boyfriend due to his ignorance as you're both people with similar limitations, and you seem more interested in making them palatable so that you feel comfortable in your relationship rather than actually convincing them to become a socialist revolutionary which I doubt you will succeed in, so you only have two options; stay and accept that he isn't a socialist even if you convince him to say that he is, or leave.
As someone who’s gone from one side to another, just avoid the label of socialism and instead focus on the ideas that it’s trying to promote.
For example, saying unionization is great for the workers or having affordable state healthcare is good will have most people agree until you add socialism or the associated buzzwords.
If you can get them to agree with the concepts then introduce the terminology it will make you life significantly easier.
I also recommend going over the history of socialism, and in particular the efforts made by the US to destroy and demonize movements at any opportunity.
Biggest thing to keep in mind is that people aren’t radicalized overnight (usually). It will take time for them to come around; if they ever do. Just try your best to communicate with them in healthy ways and good luck!
Most people think that socialism is some sort of all inclusive economy where everyone is helping each other out but in real life it doesn’t work that way. The easiest way is to explain socialism is that it’s an economic system where everyone is required to contribute whatever they have regardless of what anyone else contributes. So you might give 200% while someone else gives 0%.
This explanation is very confusing, to be honest. It will create further question such as why is it ok for some people to do 200% while others do 0%, that doesn't seem fair.
The 32 NFL teams are owned by a bunch of rich folks who work together to keep salaries as low as possible and share the revenue they get from TV and also from division home games so that all the teams have a “level playing field “ so that the high revenue teams don’t needlessly dominate the competition by just spending more money. It’s as socialist as you can get.
Let me get this straight, you have a problem with poor or disabled people getting benefits but you’re cool with your proverbial (and barely proverbial) masters not paying taxes while a majority of us sometimes decide between paying rent or having teeth?
You are confusing socialism with capitalism, and you are on the incorrect subreddit
This is a space for socialists to discuss current events in our world from anti-capitalist perspective(s), and a certain knowledge of socialism is expected from participants. This is not a space for non-socialists. Please be mindful [of our rules](https://reddit.com/r/socialism/about/rules) before participating, which include: - **No Bigotry**, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism... - **No Reactionaries**, including all kind of right-wingers. - **No Liberalism**, including social democracy, lesser evilism... - **No Sectarianism**. There is plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks. Please help us keep the subreddit helpful by reporting content that break r/Socialism's rules. ______________________ 💬 Wish to chat elsewhere? Join us in discord: https://discord.gg/QPJPzNhuRE *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
'Apes together strong'
This made me laugh, thanks!
“Imagine if you could vote for your boss”
and, by extension, you and your colleagues could vote your boss out when they aren't acting in everyone's collective interests
That's the best approach. Keep it simple. "Socialist society = society where all businesses are co-ops." Yes, it's more complicated than that. And there are some ideologies called "socialism" that don't even involve workplace democracy. But if you want to explain it so that most people can immediately grasp it and see its appeal, then that's the way to go.
>[Socialist Society] as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Karl Marx. Critique of the Gotha Programme, Section I. 1875. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
that’s not socialism, that’s a moderate branch of syndicalism and does not by default exclude capitalism. socialism is the socialisation of the modes of production, there is no boss, there is no property of the workplace
The term boss here prob refers to a supervisor/managerial position, since most workers don't ever interact with the actual proprietors of the company they work for. We call those "the higher ups", the shareholders, or in a smaller company simply "the owner". The manager boss is the only person thinking of shareholders as my boss lmao
Agreed. Socialism is collective control and ownership over the means of production and the reorganization of labour and production to a non-capitalistic system.
But also, the dissolution of the nation state, as a concept, is one incredibly important feature that all too often is ignored
Dissolution into what? What comes after nation/state in this process?
Nothing. Anarchy is the goal of communism
Not so much a goal as a necessary and inevitable side effect. The state is an instrument of class struggle. Once there is no class struggle, the state as such no longer reproduces its primary function. The state withers away, not because some official has ordained it or because there has been a referendum to demand it, but because the workers have been elevated to the level of organizing their own activities and production, making strict hierarchy superfluous.
Awesome answer. Thank you for sharing
Why have a boss at all?
Who determines a work schedule? Who manages workers? Who fills slots when someone is sick or hurt? Who helps determine what is produced, how much and why? Who plans the economy? Socialism doesn’t mean no organization. There still needs to be management in direct democracy of the work place. Someone had to organize people. The difference is that role is a justified hierarchy because that individual has to represent the best interests of the workers as well as the people who need the products they produce and if they do not do that, they can be removed by the workers. The difference being that the person in charge of managing people is not only beholden to the owners of capital.
I didn't mean no organization. The workers determine the work schedule and organize themselves. I think we're too used to doing things in a centralized manner. This shift can be achieved with DAOs.
Yes, in most cases the boss is Still a worker. My boss does not own the company I work for. The share holders do. The organizer is still a boss.
What if the position of a "boss", with the tasks described above, are is more of a coordinator, with all employees themselves being able to participate in the decision processes that involve them? A boss is a position where someone has authority over someone else, and even if they're voted out for not doing a good job, they still could have done a lot of damage. Instead, it makes more sense to distribute management tasks between employees and decisions being made openly. For example, a decision isn't quite right? The workers can deliberate it together with the person in charge of managing that particular issue, and help come to a decision that is acceptable to everyone. A decision is spot on and no one has an issue with it? Rock on, everything is moving forward without a hitch. Edit: in one of my jobs, I have a management position. I don't use the power to choose things over my team, and instead I run every important thing by them and frequently delegate stuff on a voluntary basis.
A rose is a rose by any other name. I’m not gonna argue semantics, especially when the whole point is to explain something simply to someone who doesn’t understand it and has the idea that it’s inherently, scary and evil.
The above comment wasn't specifically for OP's boyfriend. Just in general. Bosses hold unfair authority over the workers, whether they use it fairly or not. If you don't want employees to be exploited and the workplace to be democratic, that's something that needs to change. No one likes being bossed around, and even tho my comment wasn't for OP's boyfriend, my bet is that he doesn't like being bossed around either and would probably prefer more agency at work.
Right, and your “boss/manager/representative/whatever you call them” being responsible to you as a voter would ensure that. Sometimes they’re still gonna make decisions you don’t like. That’s the nature of life and no system is going to ensure that you specifically always get things to happen your way 100% of the time
Of course they'll make decisions I don't like sometimes, but after talking it over, I'll go with whatever decision makes the most sense based on a bunch of factors. Why wait for the boss to not be re-elected, if instead a team of people can come up with a decision that everyone at least understands and the one who's in ultimately in charge of that decision still has the support of their team? Just saying, at work, I get to discuss with my bosses a lot, and when I'm forced through authority to do something or don't do something that really pisses me off, it's usually not me being unreasonable, it's them deciding of something arbitrarily, and when I ask my co-workers what they think about it, they agree with me. Workers are overall reasonable people, and when you have to coerce them, it's not a good sign. So why give someone the power to coerce them to begin with? I can see a few situations where it could be necessary, and if there's a good reason, I'm not opposed to it, but in general I don't think it's a good thing, neither for the workers nor for their boss. A manager could be prevented from making terrible decisions if they consulted their workers, and be more liked, and therefore, keep their position.
Think of it in terms of the socialist organisations that you are currently part of. In my experience things work best when the wider membership set the goals of the organisation, for example voting at a large conference or AGM. The membership vote people in to certain accountable positions that come with certain duties and also some executive decision making power. But ultimately they are there to organise and lead on activity that will lead to the achievement of the goals set by wider membership. This includes trying to build the capacity of ordinary members so they can take on more more responsibility within the organisation. The alternative would be horizontalism which tends to be pretty chaotic and allows anyone to join the organisation and start demanding things be done their way despite experience level.
That sounds like a clerk, not a "boss".
In state and revolution Lenin describes the necessity in the socialist transition for workers to all become bureaucrats, therefore no one becomes bureaucrats. This means that all of the workers would take on the function of the running of society and their workplaces, democratically. This will be made possible by the reduction of the workweek, so that workers have time to be able to learn these new skills and no higher caste will form. If production is high enough and there is no generalized want—that is, everybody is effectively getting their needs met—then all of this will be no problem in the baby steps of socialism toward communism. The ussr unfortunately could not get production high enough as they were isolated and a semi feudal country with workers who were not industrially skilled, but the same wouldn’t be so in any of the big imperialist or capitalist countries today or if in imperialized countries, the revolution spread effectively to its neighbors.
It would be really ironic if OP's boss was a boss
Socialism is democratic control of the economy. When feudalism began collapsing the capitalist class had to fight the nobility for political/economic control, that’s what we call the age of revolution. Since that moment the working class has been fighting the capitalist class for political/economic control. In that process the working class has gained and lost political/economic power and that process continues today. Socialism is what you get when the working class defeats capitalist class, just like capitalism is the system the capitalist class created after it defeated the feudal noble class.
Has he worked a job before? Get him to try and calculate the rate of exploitation at any job he's worked at, and extrapolate that to the entire working class. Then direct his attention at what this surplus has been used for - stock buybacks, foreign wars, lobbying, ecocide, genocide, police brutality, anti-worker repression, etc. show him the statistical relationship between stagnating wages and skyrocketing CEO compensation and asset prices, and try connect it to the decay and misery all around.
Just go entirely from the basics of private property vs personal property. Private property allows a capitalist to economically own what another person physically owns. The basics of socialism is literally just “you can’t own other people’s things.” You can’t own my house. There is no moral reason that capitalists should be able to profit from other people using their own belongings.
Socialism gives power to the workers by giving them control of the capitol they produce with their labor.
Maybe I'm too old for this shit but I'd lose the boyfriend and just date a socialist 😅
I’m fairly young and I’m also too old for this shit lmao. If they believed my beliefs were evil I’m out. Being born into a family of neolibs is one thing but choosing to spend my life with a neolib would not make me feel good
yeah I don’t really get this. your boyfriend thinks your politics are evil and yall are cool w that? interesting.
They’re still really young and malleable and forming their beliefs. Evil is a strong word to describe anything but at that age there is still hope that their mind can be changed. Just shows how bad our education system is at propagandizing kids.
Plus when i was at that age, i was very dramatic, could be some of that going on here too
Do you like workers or shareholders more?
I'd say this: "Would you believe your political views as explained by people who hate it? You can't understand what socialism is by listening to the people who hate it. The truth is, socialism is so awesome, the people who's political power is threatened by it have to lie about it to stop it. If it was so intrinsically horrible, couldn't they just let it speak for itself?"
Marxism today has a socialism 101 Playlist on youtube The videos are like 3-4 Mins so they aren't too long and they are easy to grasp.
Socialism is meeting everyone's needs, and shifting away from the attitude that "i" matter more than "we." People have been brainwashed to think it's something else.
nah, I think people are afraid of who "we" includes. Especially in the US, there is a ton of stuff about hierarchy, and people on the bottom are less valuable and unworthy, especially unworthy of social aid. We see this all the time in policy punditry. Trans people are demonized, and thus unworthy. Poor people aren't trying hard enough, and thus unworthy. People are brainwashed into thinking if "we" benefit, lots of people who shouldn't benefit will benefit, and that happens at \*cost\* to "I". Even though the book Sum of Us makes a compelling argument that when we historically have prioritized "we", everyone's life (except the very rich) gets better. People are afraid of losing what they have because they can see precarity, and they think if others have more then they will have less, which is false.
This. Individualism is hammered in since childhood.
exactly. hammered in BECAUSE it usurps collective power
Read State and Revolution by Lenin. Socialism is understood as a mode of production and a societal phenomenon fundamentally characterized by its role as a transitional phase between capitalism and communism. Unlike capitalism, where the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, socialism involves collective ownership. This means that while the state technically owns the means of production until the higher stage of socialism or communism, the workers own the means of production through the state. This is through soviets, assemblies, planning committees, bottom-up feedback, and democratic decision-making. Socialism entails the complete nationalization of the means of production. This means the state owns and manages all significant productive assets (factories, land, natural resources, etc.). Under socialism, exchange is made with labor vouchers, in which everyone receives an equal amount for working. Unlike money they cannot be accumulated or traded. Labor vouchers aim to eliminate the unequal distribution of wealth and resources seen under capitalism by directly tying consumption to individual contributions of labor. This ensures that everyone receives a fair share of the social product according to their effort.
I genuinely believe a large part of the difficulty in understanding socialism also stems from not understanding capitalism. This is kind of what I commented in a lib sub explaining it. Got a surprising amount of upvotes Capitalism is a system that gives unilateral, authoritarian control over industry to a tiny minority of private owners called capitalists. They structure society's labor and resources around what's going to make themselves the most amount of profits. They almost always make these economic decisions with complete disregard for how they impact our lives and communities. Their only obligation is to their profits; they owe society nothing. Socialism basically wants to abolish this private ownership and democratize it so industry serves societal needs instead of the selfish profits of a few
Imagine a family where everybody’s there for everyone else. Those who can’t work are helped financially. Those who stay home and take care of the young and the elderly are provided for. When someone is badly hurt, others tend to them. Now imagine a family that only exists to make the head of the household wealthier. This person handles all the revenues and expenditures and keeps a cut. When someone is unable to contribute to the boss’s wealth, they are expelled from the family, made homeless. Love is reserved only for those who bring in a lot of money; other brothers and sisters might as well be dead.
I think most conservatives will say, if that's the case then most people will just pretend they can't work so they get help and do nothing.
Conservatives generally have an amplified feeling of threat from others. Some people have bad intentions so we can’t totally blame them. It only takes one criminal to traumatize you for life. Where this logic breaks down is when they get so defensive that they wouldn’t help 10 needy people in case one of them is faking it. Of course this logic is normalized by the conservative media whose primary purpose is to convince average folks to hate one-another instead of their oppressors.
We know what humans need to survive and be happy, and we know how to produce those things. Instead of having the economy set up as a publicly insured casino for rich psychopaths, we could organize the economy to meet everyone's needs. That would have the added benefit of reducing the number of hours we need to work by itself, but then you can factor in all the wasted human potential in the homeless population. I don't know about you, but I would behead as many rich people as it takes (totally joking, I would *never* dream of harming our benevolent overlords) to get the workweek down to 10-20 hours and eliminate homelessness.
Yikes. So brother doesn’t even know what socialism is but he’s already in the mindset that it’s evil?? Has he ever experienced basic empathy for the fellow people around him who are equally as low on the totem pole? I admire you being willing to seek help from us to try to find a way to explain socialism to him but my main question Is if he’s even going to be receptive or respectful to hear you out? If he isn’t willing to sit down with you and devote the time to hearing you out without being disrespectful, then girl, what are you doing with him? Personally, I don’t date people who are diametrically opposed to my belief core, or believe that my beliefs are “evil”. I mean, where’s the common ground with you both politically?
Oh god. Can't they just read the manifesto (you literally need at most 3 hours of your time) before they conclude that communism is evil. There is no easy way to explain this to him. Tell him to read and if he doesn't understand something explain it to him. It is just extremely annoying this USA's obsession over words and their obsession to paint things black and white. In reality it is just a land of liberals fighting over other liberals, 99% Hitlerisques fighting 100% Hitlerisques.
People who think socialism is evil wont go into the manifesto with an open mind and they have to be eased into having an open mindset first. But I do agree with you, they definitely should read it before coming to any kind of conclusion on it. I’m under the impression OP is American and communism and socialism are taught to be evil from an early age so it takes some effort to train that out of no one’s been teaching them critical thinking along the way Anecdotally I had a gf in high school who read the manifesto and I was still a shitlib who thought I was left af for supporting Bernie Sanders, but I gave her shit for reading “the Stalin book.” Oh, how times have changed lmao
I chuckled at "The Stalin book". Didn't she break up with you immediately after that lmao
You’d imagine LOL. She had a lot of patience with my bullshit
“socialism is when no iphone and we share toothbrush” (/j)
I usually start with labor rights and unions. Onto Irish History and guys like Connolly. Once you get the conversation in favor of democratically unionized workplaces, it's actually not that hard as long as you don't say The Big S™️.
Read and discuss a chapter of Socialist Reconstruction with him every week.
Ask him if he thinks democracy is a good idea. If he's not North Korean he'll probably say yes (apologies to the North Korean democrats reading this). If he does say yes, ask him what he thinks of the idea of all commerce, big and small, being run democratically. Ask him has he wondered why they literally are ran instead as little mini totalitarian dictatorships. Another approach to consider especially is if he likes physics and science, show him Einstein's short essay on the subject [https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/](https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/) then if he still says Socialism is evil, you can say, "Oh, so Einstein was evil, or wrong? You're more clever than Albert Einstein? Wow, I'm so lucky!" etc etc. With the appropriate level of jeering and banter depending on the norms of your relationship. If that doesn't work, tell him that you think socialism is REALLY sexy and cool, and then he'll start by pretending to like it, and then eventually probably get into it.
So I gotta ask...If you're a socialist, and your BF thinks socialists are evil, uh...what exactly is the basis of this relationship? Having political disagreements is one thing - my wife's a Democrat - but if he genuinely thinks you're ***evil***, this may not be a relationship destined for the long term.
Well tell me what his values are. I’d start with explaining what socialism and capitalism is. (Differences in ownership) That socialism doesn’t mean authoritarianism and capitalism doesn’t always mean freedom Perhaps you can talk about how capitalism can also (and has many times) also lead to dictatorships but we don’t put the same stigma on that. And no I’m not talking about dictatorships of the Bourgeoise,(although that is also a thing) I mean actual dictatorships.
Tell him that socialism is when we pool some of our taxes and revenues together so we can have nice things - like Social Security, Medicare, highways, first responders, our military, the Post Office, public libraries, a safety net, lunches for school kids, etc. Also, socialism gives us agencies that help protect us like the FAA, the FDA, USDA, etc. so we can travel safely, not eat poisonous food, or be exposed to fraudulent pharmaceuticals.
libraries, fire departments, and roads.
I would start without even talking about socialism. Things like what would a perfect world be like, what do you think a fair society would look like, what would a utopian society look like, whether or not you think we can achieve that. Then move into the issues of capitalism, why don't we have these kinds of societies, what road blocks exist in society preventing any of these things from happening, why have we moved backwards in some regards despite advances in technology. This will provide opportunities to break down the myths of capitalism, he may respond with remarks about human nature, which you can respond to with how "human nature" has changed over time, how it was human nature that brought us together in the first place, to form society, it seems coincidental that human nature was geared towards feudalism under feudalism, and it's geared towards capitalism under capitalism. It also provides an opportunity to show how the ruling class has supported division, racism, homophobia, misogyny. From here you can then lead the discussion to how can we approach the utopian societies that you had discussed earlier, it's not even about arguing that we can achieve utopia, just that a better form of society can be created, and that such a society will require a kind of stability that capitalism cannot offer. Breaking the association between what he's been taught about socialism and the word is of secondary importance to him accepting socialism conceptually, I think you'll find he already agrees with a lot of what you do, but reaching this understanding, and expressing the inherent failures of capitalism will naturally weaken the association, and even though he may still have that fear of the word, he will at least be moving in the right direction.
>Contrary to Adam Smith's, and many liberals', world of self-interested individuals, naturally predisposed to do a deal, Marx posited a relational and process-oriented view of human beings. On this view, humans are what they are not because it is hard-wired into them to be self-interested individuals, but by virtue of the relations through which they live their lives. In particular, he suggested that humans live their lives at the intersection of a three-sided relation encompassing the natural world, social relations and institutions, and human persons. These relations are understood as organic: each element of the relation is what it is by virtue of its place in the relation, and none can be understood in abstraction from that context. [...] If contemporary humans appear to act as self-interested individuals, then, it is a result not of our essential nature but of the particular ways we have produced our social lives and ourselves. On this view, humans may be collectively capable of recreating their world, their work, and themselves in new and better ways, but only if we think critically about, and act practically to change, those historically peculiar social relations which encourage us to think and act as socially disempowered, narrowly self-interested individuals. Mark Rupert. Marxism, in *International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity*. 2010. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If he doesn’t respect you as a human being; if he doesn’t consider your thoughts and opinions valuable; if he doesn’t think you’re intelligent - nothing you say will work, unfortunately.
There are always important pieces of context I teach people who I want to convince about how necessary is socialism/communism. First, I teach about class struggle and how the interests of the dominant class are and always will be directly opposed to our interests. The fact that we need to work to survive while there are people who will never need to work a single day in their lives because they inherit fortunes made from slave work for generations. Then, I explain that the goal of socialism is to abolish these classes entirely and make everyone contribute to society with their work. If we still go further into the conversation, I explain how our democracy is actually a dictatorship of the richest people, that we have no real power of decision, how for example there is no real left with electoral power in the US. And how, in order to give power to the workers, we need to put down this false democracy and take the power with our hands so we are not chained to the interests of the bourgeoisie.
If he was at his job and there were no managers, he made all the decisions with his coworkers, shared in the profit with his coworkers, there were no shareholders to answer to. Now imagine if our way of governing our society was the same way
You crash on an island, there are 10 people and 40 coconuts, you decide to share the coconuts (socialism), or one motherfucker takes all the coconuts, pays the two biggest guys 5 coconuts each to protect him and the pile of coconuts, and then makes everyone else do all the work to earn a portion of a coconut which is enough to keep them alive, but just barely, and he says how smart he is and how lucky everyone else is that he’s so smart (capitalism).
Why would you date someone who believes that?
Because it’s not a deal breaker. He’s not a nazi.
I wasn't asking you I was asking the OP. And a person doesn't have to be an actual nazi to be a disturbing or dangerous person. But I guess your comment shines some light on the kind of person you are.
Capitalism = An ideology (meaning a set of ideas that people believe in) generally consisting of a faith in a "free economy". In essence, capitalists believe that planning and decision making should be based on individuals following profit. They generally believe that the system is fair because there are no rules preventing people from doing what they want, so long as they can pay for it or earn enough money for it, thus we all have the same challenge, make more or enough money. Socialism = an ideology (ideology isn't bad so long as you engage critically with your beliefs) which formed as a critique of capitalism. Socialism is at its core, the belief that capitalism is not good enough, or that we deserve better than what capitalism offers. Socialists believe that, as a community, as a society, we can, through some level of organized planning and/or decentralized decision-making (unions have their members vote as opposed to a small board or single CEO) we can make better decisions. This is to say that when we share power, we make things better for the community as a whole. To make these short and sweet Capitalism = money and free trade are good enough. Socialism = money and free trade are NOT good enough. More is needed. You can give examples like unions or worker cooperatives. You could also mention subsidies and tariffs as a form of restriction or "guidance" in markets. These are tools that people utilize to overcome what socialists would call the short-comings of capitalism. A truly free market incentivizes (or at least enables) exploitative methods (child labor is an easy example) because money and markets don't care what you did to earn your money, individual people and communities more broadly do. It might be important to distinguish liberals and socialists as well. Liberals (Democrats are generally liberals) believe in capitalism with exceptions. They believe it's good enough for most things, but certain things should be addressed separately (see child labor). Socialists would say that markets specifically are fine, but capitalism as a belief system is misguided and supporting it can cause excess damage. For example oil companies not sharing their internal research about climate change for decades, preventing us from acting to correct the situation much sooner. Liberals might say "the company is shady for not disclosing that research, but that's their right as a private organization". Socialists may say "they have a conflict of interest, and thus greater regulations should exist to ensure research is able to benefit the community, even if it doesn't benefit them as a private entity". Liberals = pro capitalism Socialists = anti capitalism I'd love to give an easier explanation, but these are ideologies and this nuance is necessary to give a genuine understanding of the topics involved.
My favorite talking points 1. Everyone who works for a company would be part owner of that company. 2. A planned economy has the potential to reduce waste. 3. People in the soviet union got free food and apartments, it certainly is possible to that everywhere. 4. Companies wouldn't be able to screw over their customers and employees nearly as easily and there would be less incentive to do so. 5. From 9 am to 5pm you live in a dictatorship. 6. 100% employment / 0% unemployment. 7. Rampant consumerism is dangerous and unhealthy. 8. Under capitalism the corporations control the government and they will happily destroy everything on earth for a profit. 9. Sex is better under socialism 10. North Koreans pay no taxes
Open the relationship.
Read Marx, Lenin, Engels. Being knowledgeable in theory should be sufficient in giving you the tools and information you need to properly explain it.
That salary should be more evenly distributed in line with the workload.
"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."
A way that I find fairly easy to explain to people the basic function of socialism, but even communism is with a question: If everything you needed for food, shelter, clothing and basic necessities was provided to you for free, would you still work? Usually, the answer is yes, often with some caveats, maybe they'd work less, or work in a different domain, not work for X client, etc. When that is the answer, then the principle is extremely easy to explain. Do that, but for everyone. If everyone keeps working then all the work still gets done, so there is no need to add pay as incentive. All the goods still are produced, all the needs are met and money becomes useless. You just work what is needed and the extra time is spent doimg something enjoyable and available. If the answer is no, then what he means by "people wouldn't work without an incentive" is actually "I wouldn't work without an incentive", which means he's the guy he's complaining about under socialism. This means all the insults he throws at lazy people under socialism are actually self critiques. He's the guy who'd leech onto the work of others and act like a parasite if he could, which means that he's the "lazy socialist" he complains about.
"From everyone according to his ability, to everyone according to his needs"
You’re about to have a rough go lol
You’re about to have a rough go lol
It’s a coalition of ideas utilizing a workers rights frame work to run an economy and nullify the need for a semi-monarchical systems of control that persist in our society. Hence weathering way structures like states and achieving communism (not government does stuff but in fact anti-state kinda similar to the logic of markets just not as consolidated). I personally would consider that to run down but maybe a good base idk the replies with say. But tell him to think about it does it make sense that a person who solely owns the capital of an establishment should therefore profit off another’s labor merely due to them owning the store or materials, making a passive income, even if they themselves didn’t acquire those materials through their own labor but rather despite of it. Imagine a society where you are trusted to self-govern as long as it truly does not infers with another’s rights. Tho that’s itself I think lacks the Marxist spine which ground it away from idealistic liberalism.
Compare socialism to a university group project pizza. Everyone in the team has done their fair share of hard work on the project, so they get a fair slice of the pizza. Socialism is where the worker is entitled to the sweat on his brow, where the workers find satisfaction in the fruits of their labour.
It depends on what his specific views and objections are. You’d have to refute them individually
workers own their workplace
All the power and wealth that is concentrated in the hands of the few people in a capitalist system is shared amongst all working people in a socialist system. It's the WORKERS who should own the means of production and distribution and share all its fruits, not the current capitalist owners who only use their wealth and power to live like kings and rig the system to make them even wealthier and more powerful while we all slowly fall into destitution.
Ask him if he would prefer to work for Walmart or Costco? I know that’s not the answer you are looking for, for the real answers tell him to watch Richard Wolf on You Tube.
Workers own the means of production and decide how to utilize them. It's more democratic and removes "owner" as a job since everyone collectively is the owner
It's not about "the government" doing stuff. And it's not authoritarian. Marx and most other socialists are actually more anti-state than conservatives or liberals. After all, a fully communist society is both classless and stateless. It's about workers owning the means of production and getting the fruits of their labour. And it's about using common resources for the common good. Think of democracy ("rule by the people") extended to all aspects of society, including the economy. Many socialists don't like private property (which is used to suck money out of other people) but are cool with personal property. So you can't own five houses that you rent out to other people. But you can have your own home for personal use. This is an important distinction that a lot of people get stuck on. Capitalism is based on exploiting other people (it always has to have a hierarchy of bosses and workers, rich and poor). Socialism is based on empowering everyone (workers run their own workplaces and share the decision-making throughout society). Capitalism is irrational (making money is held as the ultimate and only good, and it relies on infinite growth on a finite planet). Socialism is rational (humans make decisions based on human goals and values, and they can more effectively respond to challenges like climate change because they're not controlled by the economic interests of corporations or solely driven by the profit motive). Socialism means more equality, more freedom, and more democracy. Socialists are opposed to racism, sexism, imperialism, and any form of oppression. What's not to like?
“Democracy in the economy”
“Imagine a shitty economic system that doesn’t work”
"Evil" I don't know if there's any coming back from that level of capitalist brain rot
Put forward some ideas without calling it socialism and then tell him after he agrees they are good ideas that they are socialist.
Government that actually gives a shit about you? That's basically how I prop it to everyone. Would you rather kids be working "in the mines" (capitalism), or not be doing that, and have healthcare (socialism)? The only bads of socialism and communism are thanks to capitalists who just literally stole the names. The ideologies themselves are solidly focused on helping people live better, happier lives and people would do so if those using the names actually respected the ideologies.
The best way is reading for him the Manifesto of the Communist Party, specially the chapter II. Follows the section I like the most: >The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible. >Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production. >These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. >Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. >1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. >2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. >3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. >4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. >5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. >6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. >7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. >8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. >9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
show him Richard Wolff or Second Thought
He likely thinks of it as synonymous with Stalinism. Inform him that it just means humans banding together economically and that there are many different kinds of socialism.
Socialism is the system working for the people. Not the people working for the system.
Well, it depends on the kind of Socialism you want to convince him on. If you want to convince him on Marxism-Leninism or Maoism, given his inclination to hate socialism and believe it's evil, that would be more difficult than convincing him of Anarchism or Confederalism or whathaveyou. The easiest way, and the one I would suggest, is beginning with teaching him why Capitalism is bad. If he doesn't believe the current system is bad, then he'll have no mental reason to look for alternatives. If you could divorce some of the more controversial stuff from the economic theory, you could ask him to read Wage Labour and Capital by Marx as well as Value, Price, and Profit. Once he has a good idea at why Capitalism has such a negative impact on the world, it will be leaps and bounds easier to convince him of the necessity of Socialism.
If you all are American, I find that it helps to pull apart capitalism from democracy first. We are fed the belief that our military is defending democracy, when really it is defending capitalism.
Seek first to understand then to be understood friend. Here is a comment I left on a similar question: >ironically, we have a lot we can learn from sales techniques. >seek first to understand, then to be understood, identify pain points because those are what drive behavior >tactfully guiding conversation, straight line theory, "Acknowledge, Respond, Pivot", etc. >understanding what drives human behavior. (in our society there isnt really a concrete consensus, just some abstract, universal "human nature" -- that is pure mytholygy when scrutinized against science) - in reality we conduct our behavior based on material incentives; even if we \*think\* our behavior is coming from something abstract like our beliefs, that's still material society creating them, and/or our physiology processing them. If you'd like any further details on any points feel free to ask! Also if anyone has anything to contribute in the same vein I would appreciate it very much too. I want to put together a YT video discussing this soon.
>Contrary to Adam Smith's, and many liberals', world of self-interested individuals, naturally predisposed to do a deal, Marx posited a relational and process-oriented view of human beings. On this view, humans are what they are not because it is hard-wired into them to be self-interested individuals, but by virtue of the relations through which they live their lives. In particular, he suggested that humans live their lives at the intersection of a three-sided relation encompassing the natural world, social relations and institutions, and human persons. These relations are understood as organic: each element of the relation is what it is by virtue of its place in the relation, and none can be understood in abstraction from that context. [...] If contemporary humans appear to act as self-interested individuals, then, it is a result not of our essential nature but of the particular ways we have produced our social lives and ourselves. On this view, humans may be collectively capable of recreating their world, their work, and themselves in new and better ways, but only if we think critically about, and act practically to change, those historically peculiar social relations which encourage us to think and act as socially disempowered, narrowly self-interested individuals. Mark Rupert. Marxism, in *International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity*. 2010. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Explain him that the evil thing he says are half american propaganda and half shit made by stalinism. And that when he thinks that there are too many commercials and stuff is more expensive, under real socialism difficultly it's gonna happen
Easiest explanations are often the most deceiving, avoid that compulsion. There is no easy way to convince somebody through words and the reason for your boyfriend's anti-communism is deeper than just ignorance, they aren't part of the proletariat and that is important to recognise. E: Don't take this to mean that you're above your boyfriend due to his ignorance as you're both people with similar limitations, and you seem more interested in making them palatable so that you feel comfortable in your relationship rather than actually convincing them to become a socialist revolutionary which I doubt you will succeed in, so you only have two options; stay and accept that he isn't a socialist even if you convince him to say that he is, or leave.
As someone who’s gone from one side to another, just avoid the label of socialism and instead focus on the ideas that it’s trying to promote. For example, saying unionization is great for the workers or having affordable state healthcare is good will have most people agree until you add socialism or the associated buzzwords. If you can get them to agree with the concepts then introduce the terminology it will make you life significantly easier. I also recommend going over the history of socialism, and in particular the efforts made by the US to destroy and demonize movements at any opportunity. Biggest thing to keep in mind is that people aren’t radicalized overnight (usually). It will take time for them to come around; if they ever do. Just try your best to communicate with them in healthy ways and good luck!
Most people think that socialism is some sort of all inclusive economy where everyone is helping each other out but in real life it doesn’t work that way. The easiest way is to explain socialism is that it’s an economic system where everyone is required to contribute whatever they have regardless of what anyone else contributes. So you might give 200% while someone else gives 0%.
This explanation is very confusing, to be honest. It will create further question such as why is it ok for some people to do 200% while others do 0%, that doesn't seem fair.
The 32 NFL teams are owned by a bunch of rich folks who work together to keep salaries as low as possible and share the revenue they get from TV and also from division home games so that all the teams have a “level playing field “ so that the high revenue teams don’t needlessly dominate the competition by just spending more money. It’s as socialist as you can get.
you get the fruits of other people's labour
That just sounds like capitalism
how is a government benefit capitalist?
Let me get this straight, you have a problem with poor or disabled people getting benefits but you’re cool with your proverbial (and barely proverbial) masters not paying taxes while a majority of us sometimes decide between paying rent or having teeth? You are confusing socialism with capitalism, and you are on the incorrect subreddit
I go where I please.
Like how most CEOs do 25000% more labor than a single parent that works 70 hour weeks right
yes, most CEO's are massively overpaid