I thought this video was weak basic marxism 101 stuff. Usually there's a lot of depth (at least implied) packed into Contra's videos.
But it is part 1 and the ending was interesting. I guess I just wanna see where part 2 goes
So.. Capitalist society is imperfect, and the solution to that is..? This was 20 minutes of the same Facebook argument-tier complaints about capitalism with, as usual, no solution or alternative. You want socialism but can't point to any state that exhibits it working well, so you just moan about how having a minimum wage job is boring and unfair, with some weird "white men want to be rockstars" tangent peppered in there just because it can't be a Contrapoints video without having a go at white men for some reason.
[QUOTE=srobins;53018840]So.. Capitalist society is imperfect, and the solution to that is..? This was 20 minutes of the same Facebook argument-tier complaints about capitalism with, as usual, no solution or alternative. You want socialism but can't point to any state that exhibits it working well, so you just moan about how having a minimum wage job is boring and unfair, with some weird "white men want to be rockstars" tangent peppered in there just because it can't be a Contrapoints video without having a go at white men for some reason.[/QUOTE]
There's a large part 1 in the title. We can probably expect more on what to do in part 2, and contra didn't even explicitly call for socialism technically iirc (?), and even criticized socialists in this.
And the rockstar thing is hyperbole. The argument is that media sells people an image and future that for many may not be attainable.
Has anyone who complains about low wages, actually done the math of keeping a company going? There are a lot of things to consider, the workflow is usually not consistent, there are machines to pay for, houses to put the machiens in and so on which leaves you with an actually small margain of profit, a lot of people look at the sum of the profit, rather than the perspective of how much money the company circulates.
On the Uber point, she just compares being an own operator in the transport industry to being an employee that dosen't have to worry about anything. The points she raises in that topic is the reality for anyone who is trying to run a business, you might not be part of a big chain-operation, but the same problems are usually there because you rely on someone to supply you with your job, if you're a trucker you rely on the spedition to relay customers to trucking companies, if you own a restaurant in a restaurantchain, you rely on the brand name to relay customers to you.
Running a company is a lot more to it than many people seem to think, you risk your own money to start a business while relaying on complete strangers to play with your money to make more money.
I think generaly she calls for criticism of capitalism, but with a rebranding of the ideas, instead of using the same communist terminology that's completely driven into the ground. She criticises people who go "capitalism is awful" on twitter but never do anything about it, and on the opposite side of things the people who see things so radicaly they don't contribute anything to the debate.
She also makes good points about advertising, something that's less often discussed.
In general she doesn't make videos for the people who just don't agree with her basic views because she knows she can't do much to change their mind. Her videos are more targetted at her camp, giving the left advice on how to be more effective and relevant with todays context.
[QUOTE=Skusty;53018931]Has anyone who complains about low wages, actually done the math of keeping a company going? There are a lot of things to consider, the workflow is usually not consistent, there are machines to pay for, houses to put the machiens in and so on which leaves you with an actually small margain of profit, a lot of people look at the sum of the profit, rather than the perspective of how much money the company circulates.[/QUOTE]
Arguably the need for an overworked and underpaid working class is a pretty big strike against it.
[QUOTE=Loth;53018939]In general she doesn't make videos for the people who just don't agree with her basic views because she knows she can't do much to change their mind. Her videos are more targetted at her camp, giving the left advice on how to be more effective and relevant with todays context.[/QUOTE]
Bad arguments are still bad arguments.
There seem to be a few basic assumptions in this video:
1) People are not responsible enough to have the freedom to make their own economic choices. Instead, the creator of this video knows a lot more about what's good for you than you do.
2) The current world is a bad place to live in.
I would argue that both are just totally false.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53019036]Bad arguments are still bad arguments.[/QUOTE]
Yes, indeed, 1=1.
Wether or not the argument in the video are bad is entirely subjective though.
And I meant that a lot of the video doesn't make complete sense if you don't interact with leftists online a lot. Especialy the 2nd part of the video which is basicely a conversation between her and more radical leftists.
I never said the video wasn't criticisable. Just that her target audience isn't the people who de facto hate her or will never listen to her points.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;53018967]Arguably the need for an overworked and underpaid working class is a pretty big strike against it.[/QUOTE]
A good way to combat our current state of employment is stopping to use the big familiar brands and aiming for the smaller local companies. A big chain company has a bunch of regulations and fees turning them into the worthless occupations they are, but if small local businesses are favoured, they will expand and grow, a small employer that is independent is usually more keen to take care of it's employees because they are much more sensitive for a drop in quality.
The power in changing the economy is not just in the hands of the lawmakers, but in the hands of us consumers, if there is no market, there is no money to be made.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53019036]Bad arguments are still bad arguments.
There seem to be a few basic assumptions in this video:
1) People are not responsible enough to have the freedom to make their own economic choices. Instead, the creator of this video knows a lot more about what's good for you than you do.
2) The current world is a bad place to live in.
I would argue that both are just totally false.[/QUOTE]
Number 2 seems pretty true. I don't know any statistics, but I'm sure at least 50% of the people in the world have lives that suck.
Just because things could be worse doesn't mean they are good.
Capitalism is the root of many problems, I specially dislike the way liberal animalists tackle the issue, do they honestly think that if capitalism treats 99.9% of people so badly it's going to treat animals better?
[QUOTE=SamPerson123;53019093]Number 2 seems pretty true. I don't know any statistics, but I'm sure at least 50% of the people in the world have lives that suck.
Just because things could be worse doesn't mean they are good.[/QUOTE]
Bad and good are relative concepts, and when compared to human history, I would find it extremely difficult to argue that people today have it worse off than basically any other time.
Looking at today and comparing it to some possible future is almost literally meaningless.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53019111]Bad and good are relative concepts, and when compared to human history, I would find it extremely difficult to argue that people today have it worse off than basically any other time.
Looking at today and comparing it to some possible future is almost literally meaningless.[/QUOTE]
I just don't see why people have to starve or live on the street.
Actually, your logic sucks. If we applied that to everything then we would never improve anything, because it's already good by caveman standards.
I guess the important thing isn't whether it's bad or not, but it could be so much better with tools we have today.
[QUOTE=SamPerson123;53019131]I just don't see why people have to starve or live on the street.[/QUOTE]
Then why is it that people are living the streets? Is it because they can't find a job? Is it that their mental or medical status is interfering with their ability to keep a job? I would rather see the homeless be given the means to help themselves, rather than just the government taking their bill (which seem to be the answer that I have picked up as the most common), if you have nothing to live for, you will not work for a living. This may sound very morbid and dark, but I think it's difficult to place people back in society once they totally have lost their belief in our way of life. A common stereotype is that ex-cons don't fall back to criminality once they have found love or religion, I think that is the case with the homeless people, if they find something to fight for, they will do it, but if there is nothing to fight for, why not just give it all up.
Don't take this as I don't want to help people out, but just paying for people's existence is not going to solve the problem in the long run, because then the mindset will be "someone will pay for me anyway" and lead to a greater increase of people in need. There are no easy answers to this, but I don't think that the simple answer of buying them out is the right one.
[QUOTE=SamPerson123;53019131]I just don't see why people have to starve or live on the street.
Actually, your logic sucks. If we applied that to everything then we would never improve anything, because it's already good by caveman standards.
I guess the important thing isn't whether it's bad or not, but it could be so much better with tools we have today.[/QUOTE]
You're creating a false dichotomy. We can both say it's pretty good at this point in time, and that we would like to make it better.
The big difference between looking at it like that, and comparing us now to some utopian future possibility, is that you're much less inclined to try and tear it all down when you recognize how good things are right now.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53019036]People are not responsible enough to have the freedom to make their own economic choices. Instead, the creator of this video knows a lot more about what's good for you than you do.[/QUOTE]
That's not the point that's being made at all? Capitalism idealists are the ones who make the assumption that it provides the means for everyone to attain individual happiness, when capitalism actually needs to keep the populace wanting and create/maintain needs for its wheels to keep turning, helping people to be content with what they have and making them focus on what matters for their own happiness instead of worthless shit would run contrary to that principle.
People would be much more free to attain happiness if they evolved in an environment that fosters it instead of one that maintains the myth that it is achieved through materialistic possessions.
If everyone in the world were eventually satisfied with their lives and were happy, what would be the point of growth? That would be the end of capitalism. Those who profit from it don't want that.
[QUOTE=Skusty;53018931]Has anyone who complains about low wages, actually done the math of keeping a company going? There are a lot of things to consider, the workflow is usually not consistent, there are machines to pay for, houses to put the machiens in and so on which leaves you with an actually small margain of profit, a lot of people look at the sum of the profit, rather than the perspective of how much money the company circulates.
On the Uber point, she just compares being an own operator in the transport industry to being an employee that dosen't have to worry about anything. The points she raises in that topic is the reality for anyone who is trying to run a business, you might not be part of a big chain-operation, but the same problems are usually there because you rely on someone to supply you with your job, if you're a trucker you rely on the spedition to relay customers to trucking companies, if you own a restaurant in a restaurantchain, you rely on the brand name to relay customers to you.
Running a company is a lot more to it than many people seem to think, you risk your own money to start a business while relaying on complete strangers to play with your money to make more money.[/QUOTE]
If you're business can't run without avoiding proper wages and paying your country's actual taxes, you're not a company that shouldn't exist. To be Honest.
[editline]31st December 2017[/editline]
Captilism at its roots is basically what got us into a global warming disaster in the first place.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53019165]You're creating a false dichotomy. We can both say it's pretty good at this point in time, and that we would like to make it better.
The big difference between looking at it like that, and comparing us now to some utopian future possibility, is that you're much less inclined to try and tear it all down when you recognize how good things are right now.[/QUOTE]
I don't think we can say it's pretty good when people die of starvation or lack of care in supposedly developed countries while the rich are wealthier than they have ever been. Sorry.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53019165]You're creating a false dichotomy. We can both say it's pretty good at this point in time, and that we would like to make it better.
The big difference between looking at it like that, and comparing us now to some utopian future possibility, is that you're much less inclined to try and tear it all down when you recognize how good things are right now.[/QUOTE]
The issue is that Contrapoints isn't even looking at a utopia, infact the entire ending is mocking those that only invision their utopia.
Contra is pointing out for as much as we have money, its not spent in proper ways and our economy is not tooled to actually help people bar none. She's not talking about something better or utopia's, she's arguing that we need to get a bare minimum [B]standard.[/B]
[QUOTE=_Axel;53019454]That's not the point that's being made at all? Capitalism idealists are the ones who make the assumption that it provides the means for everyone to attain individual happiness, when capitalism actually needs to keep the populace wanting and create/maintain needs for its wheels to keep turning, helping people to be content with what they have and making them focus on what matters for their own happiness instead of worthless shit would run contrary to that principle.[/QUOTE]
This is exactly what I was referring to in my first point. My goal is to let people decide what's good for themselves while you seem to be claiming that you know what's good for them better than they do. Who are you to say the things people buy are "worthless shit" if they've chosen that they want it? Clearly it isn't worthless to them, and you have no right to force them to choose something differently. You're welcome to try and convince them otherwise, but there's nothing in capitalism that stops you from doing that already.
[QUOTE]People would be much more free to attain happiness if they evolved in an environment that fosters it instead of one that maintains the myth that it is achieved through materialistic possessions.[/QUOTE]
If this isn't a meaningless utopian statement, then I don't know what is. In theory, sure, I agree, but in reality it has no actual meaning. You might as well create a Plato-esque [i]Republic[/i] and call it a day.
[editline]31st December 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=SunsetTable;53019469]The issue is that Contrapoints isn't even looking at a utopia, infact the entire ending is mocking those that only invision their utopia.
Contra is pointing out for as much as we have money, its not spent in proper ways and our economy is not tooled to actually help people bar none. She's not talking about something better or utopia's, she's arguing that we need to get a bare minimum [B]standard.[/B][/QUOTE]
By utopia I simply mean some unproven, but better, future. You talk about a bare minimum standard, but there's really no such thing. The bare minimum 50 years ago would look far different than it would today, and it will look far different in 50 years. There is no objective standard by which to compare ourselves to other than the past that has already happened.
So let's say we were able to provide basic sustenance to every single person on the planet through some sort of UBI. Does that mean we're done? The standard has been met? No, of course not. The standard would then move to something higher. The idea that if we only hit X point, then we would be happy [B]IS[/B] utopian.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53019520]This is exactly what I was referring to in my first point. My goal is to let people decide what's good for themselves while you seem to be claiming that you know what's good for them better than they do. Who are you to say the things people buy are "worthless shit" if they've chosen that they want it? Clearly it isn't worthless to them, and you have no right to force them to choose something differently. You're welcome to try and convince them otherwise, but there's nothing in capitalism that stops you from doing that already.[/quote]
So you're content with deliberately ignoring the aspects of capitalism that manipulate people into thinking they need stuff they actually don't? Why would corporations need advertising if what they are trying to sell you are things that you really need to attain happiness and if you consider that people are responsible enough to find their happiness vectors on their own?
Either you consider that people aren't capable of finding happiness on their own and need help to do so, in which case you actually agree with the assumption you're supposedly against, or you admit that corporations are trying to detract from the happiness people would have found out on their own and do so to profit off others' insatisfaction, which they deliberately maintain.
The mere existence of ads proves that there's no alternative to those two. Which one do you pick?
I'm not pretending to know what people need better than themselves, despite what you disingenuously try to imply. In fact, as you pointed out yourself, who can judge a person's happiness better than themselves? If capitalism actually fostered individual happiness and satisfaction, then citizens of nations where it is strongest would self-report higher happiness. The opposite is actually true. Depression is typically a first world problem. How come a system that's supposed to maximize your freedom to find happiness actually result in said happiness being lower? Something's not quite right there.
[Quote]If this isn't a meaningless utopian statement, then I don't know what is. In theory, sure, I agree, but in reality it has no actual meaning. You might as well create a Plato-esque [i]Republic[/i] and call it a day.[/quote]
You going to elaborate on that or is "This is meaningless" your get out of jail free card?
How exactly is it meaningless to point out that people are less likely to find happiness when they're being bombarded with self-interested attempts by companies to exploit their craving for happiness and pretend they know better than those individuals what would make them happy?
[editline]1st January 2018[/editline]
Also, why didn't you address the last part of my post?
[QUOTE=_Axel;53019612]So you're content with deliberately ignoring the aspects of capitalism that manipulate people into thinking they need stuff they actually don't? Why would corporations need advertising if what they are trying to sell you are things that you really need to attain happiness and if you consider that people are responsible enough to find their happiness vectors on their own?
Either you consider that people aren't capable of finding happiness on their own and need help to do so, in which case you actually agree with the assumption you're supposedly against, or you admit that corporations are trying to detract from the happiness people would have found out on their own and do so to profit off others' insatisfaction, which they deliberately maintain.
The mere existence of ads proves that there's no alternative to those two. Which one do you pick?[/QUOTE]
I simply disagree with your idea that adds only serve the purpose of essentially brainwashing people into buying things that they wouldn't have bought otherwise. We have a massive number of products out there, and one of the main ways companies give you information about their products is through advertisement. In fact, there are quite a few places that I genuinely am happy to patronize that I never would have found out about if I hadn't seen their add.
I'm fine with giving information to people. It's a good way to further enhance a person's ability to reach their own idea of happiness, and there's absolutely nothing within capitalism that prevents the giving of information, as long as it's not libelous.
This is very different from [B]forcing[/B] people to make choices that you think would be better for them. This is what socialistic and/or government interventionist methods tend to do. For example, people decide that sugar soda is bad for you. So they ban it. They've decided that they know better and that you shouldn't have the right to make that choice.
[QUOTE]I'm not pretending to know what people need better than themselves, despite what you disingenuously try to imply. In fact, as you pointed out yourself, who can judge a person's happiness better than themselves?[/QUOTE]
You previously said: [B]"helping people to be content with what they have and making them focus on what matters for their own happiness instead of worthless shit would run contrary to that principle.[/B]
Can you clarify how you make people focus on what matters for their own happiness (in your opinion) as opposed to what you consider the "worthless shit" that they are now focusing on, and how that isn't you saying that you know what is good for them better than they do?
[QUOTE]If capitalism actually fostered individual happiness and satisfaction, then citizens of nations where it is strongest would self-report higher happiness. The opposite is actually true. Depression is typically a first world problem. How come a system that's supposed to maximize your freedom to find happiness actually result in said happiness being lower? Something's not quite right there.[/QUOTE]
Capitalism doesn't exist in a vacuum. There just so happen to be other things that have also changed in society over time. Interestingly enough, the west was more capitalistic, not less capitalistic, 50 years ago, and people reported higher levels of happiness. So, no, your simplistic comparison has no value whatsoever.
[QUOTE]You going to elaborate on that or is "This is meaningless" your get out of jail free card?
How exactly is it meaningless to point out that people are less likely to find happiness when they're being bombarded with self-interested attempts by companies to exploit their craving for happiness and pretend they know better than those individuals what would make them happy?[/QUOTE]
It's meaningless because it has no application in reality. There is no mystical ideology that would cause people to lose all their materialistic desires. Honestly, the only thing that has come close would be some kind of ascetic monastic sect, and I doubt that's what you're proposing.
[QUOTE]Also, why didn't you address the last part of my post?[/QUOTE]
Because it was based on the previous meaningless statement. I might as well say, "Yeah, it sure would be nice to live in a post-scarcity world where I could spend all my time doing what I wanted instead of being forced to work." That would be really cool... but it's almost meaningless in a conversation about reality. As far as reality goes, there's no such thing as everyone in the world being happy and satisfied with their lives. To use that as the standard of comparison adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.
[editline]31st December 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=_Axel;53019454]If everyone in the world were eventually satisfied with their lives and were happy, what would be the point of growth? That would be the end of capitalism. Those who profit from it don't want that.[/QUOTE]
As a side note, this is inherently contradictory, anyway. If EVERYONE IN THE WORLD were satisfied and happy, then "those who profit" would also be satisfied and happy.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;53019745]Watched the video and decided to just fix a few errors there for you.[/QUOTE]
Even your changes are still false when compared to the past.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53019748]Even your changes are still false when compared to the past.[/QUOTE]
That's such a cop out answer.
There is nothing inherently wrong with capitalism. Nor is there anything wrong with any other economical system. Every system has its benefits.
The problem is that there are always people looking to take advantage of the system. No matter what system you take, even if there is no economic system at all, the rotten apples of humanity will desperately try to Fuck You Up if they feel they if it's advantageous to them.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53019688]I simply disagree with your idea that adds only serve the purpose of essentially brainwashing people into buying things that they wouldn't have bought otherwise. We have a massive number of products out there, and one of the main ways companies give you information about their products is through advertisement. In fact, there are quite a few places that I genuinely am happy to patronize that I never would have found out about if I hadn't seen their add.
I'm fine with giving information to people. It's a good way to further enhance a person's ability to reach their own idea of happiness, and there's absolutely nothing within capitalism that prevents the giving of information, as long as it's not libelous.[/quote]
So you're admitting that people aren't capable of finding happiness on their own and need exterior help to find it then? Because that's something you were disagreeing with a few posts earlier.
Believing that ads merely serve the purpose of informing people of a product's existence would be incredibly naive. You seem to be acknowledging that fact with the way your sentence is set up. Yes, ads' purpose isn't exclusively to brainwash people into buying things they don't actually need, but that's an inherent part of their function.
[Quote]This is very different from [B]forcing[/B] people to make choices that you think would be better for them. This is what socialistic and/or government interventionist methods tend to do. For example, people decide that sugar soda is bad for you. So they ban it. They've decided that they know better and that you shouldn't have the right to make that choice.[/quote]
Have I advocated for forcing people to make choices they otherwise wouldn't anywhere here? Criticizing corporations' deep seated influence on people's desires and their use of advertising as propaganda to control them isn't anywhere near arguing for preventing people from making choices on their own. You should stop with that strawman now.
[Quote]You previously said: [B]"helping people to be content with what they have and making them focus on what matters for their own happiness instead of worthless shit would run contrary to that principle.[/B]
Can you clarify how you make people focus on what matters for their own happiness (in your opinion) as opposed to what you consider the "worthless shit" that they are now focusing on, and how that isn't you saying that you know what is good for them better than they do?[/quote]
Again, where have I said I'm doing anything personally? I'm arguing for corporations to tone down their propaganda and let people fucking breathe and find what makes them happy on their own. You keep pretending I'm saying I know better than people what's good for them, but since the beginning I'm arguing for them to actually have a greater say in that.
How can you not agree that removing biased outside influences is a way for people to have a better idea of what they really want instead of something that's been ingrained in them by relentless agressive bullshit?
[Quote]Capitalism doesn't exist in a vacuum. There just so happen to be other things that have also changed in society over time. Interestingly enough, the west was more capitalistic, not less capitalistic, 50 years ago, and people reported higher levels of happiness. So, no, your simplistic comparison has no value whatsoever.[/quote]
The countries that self-report the highest happiness aren't the most capitalistic ones. They're the ones that follow a social-democratic model, which puts restrictions on capitalism and offers a more balanced system. It's almost like pure capitalism isn't the best system to make people happy and there's something more complicated than complete "freedom" and unshielded exposure to the elements to what makes people happy.
[Quote]It's meaningless because it has no application in reality. There is no mystical ideology that would cause people to lose all their materialistic desires. Honestly, the only thing that has come close would be some kind of ascetic monastic sect, and I doubt that's what you're proposing.[/quote]
Again with the fallacies. That no system is perfect in allowing people to get closer to what they need to achieve happiness doesn't mean that capitalism isn't flawed in that regard and can't be limited in scope to allow people more breathing room.
I never pretended that a system existed that could get rid of materialistic desires entirely. But surely a system that exploits and creates frustration to entertain those desires isn't something that should be celebrated and accepted? Again, are you actually disagreeing with that?
[Quote]Because it was based on the previous meaningless statement. I might as well say, "Yeah, it sure would be nice to live in a post-scarcity world where I could spend all my time doing what I wanted instead of being forced to work." That would be really cool... but it's almost meaningless in a conversation about reality. As far as reality goes, there's no such thing as everyone in the world being happy and satisfied with their lives. To use that as the standard of comparison adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.[/quote]
There's no such thing as everyone in the world being happy and satisfied with their lives [I]and that is due in part to the system creating dissatisfaction in order to function.[/I] There are people who live in modest conditions and are happy regardless. There's no inherent reason middle class people shouldn't be happy with the lives they live if you consider material possessions alone to be the one source of happiness.
[Quote]As a side note, this is inherently contradictory, anyway. If EVERYONE IN THE WORLD were satisfied and happy, then "those who profit" would also be satisfied and happy.[/QUOTE]
You're right, let's exclude those people for the sake of the argument.
[editline]1st January 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=sgman91;53019748]Even your changes are still false when compared to the past.[/QUOTE]
But I thought you said the west was more capitalistic 50 years ago? Why didn't people have more economic freedom then?
Also are you seriously arguing that our world is more sustainable than it was before?
[QUOTE=sgman91;53019520]
[B]By utopia I simply mean some unproven, but better, future. You talk about a bare minimum standard, but there's really no such thing.[/B] [/QUOTE]
There are plenty of European countries doing it 'better' (with proven results) than the US and it's disaster Capitalism.
[QUOTE=V12US;53020174]There is nothing inherently wrong with capitalism. Nor is there anything wrong with any other economical system. Every system has its benefits.
The problem is that there are always people looking to take advantage of the system. No matter what system you take, even if there is no economic system at all, the rotten apples of humanity will desperately try to Fuck You Up if they feel they if it's advantageous to them.[/QUOTE]
I'd argue that there's plenty inherently wrong with capitalism. It's a system that rewards greed and punishes compassion. Corporations grow wealthy on the backs of the working class, and those corporations have an economic interest in not only paying workers as little as possible - but also in maintaining poor working conditions to avoid spending money on improving those conditions.
The contradiction of interest between the working and ruling class is fundamental to the system. So long as the bosses hold control over the means of production, the world's economy is entirely under the control of a small ruling elite, essentially creating a class dictatorship where the collective working class is near completely subservient to these people.
While I support people who want to implement social democratic reforms to capitalism, like Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn, and expanding public services to make the lives of poor workers easier, ultimately those efforts can only go so far. The contraction of interests between those who own the means of production and the working majority will remain intact, and will drive those with economic power to fight those reforms every step of the way, and erode them away once they're passed.
If anyone's interested in learning more about alternatives to capitalism, [URL="https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread"]The Conquest of Bread[/URL] by Peter Kropotkin is considered a good starting point, though [URL="https://s3.jacobinmag.com/issues/jacobin-abcs.pdf"]The ABCs of Socialism[/URL] by Jacobin Magazine might be good if you'd prefer something more contemporary and specific to the US. From there I might check out [URL="https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/"]Reform or Revolution[/URL] by Rosa Luxembourg and [URL="https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/"]The State and Revolution[/URL] by Lenin. All the books I've suggested here do have some differences in perspective, so keep that in mind if you decide to read. You might find yourself agreeing more with one point of view than another.
Books can only do so much, though - you'd develop a much more fleshed out perspective by being active in anti-capitalist spaces and having discussions with other like-minded people. [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/"]https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/[/URL] might be a good place to start from. When I was first developing my perspective on this stuff I found the most helpful thing was to seek out a local socialist organization and attend public meetings and talk to the people there.
[QUOTE=srobins;53018840]so you just moan about how having a minimum wage job is boring and unfair[/QUOTE]
I don't get it. People generally tend to agree that these jobs need to exist. There are too many to be filled by teenagers and people with few financial responsibilities, but then somehow these same people also decide that giving a third or so of your waking hours doing them (when they'd hate doing the jobs themselves) shouldn't entitle you to enough money to at least live off of.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
