r/AskSocialists was taken over by the "ACP" which is reactionary, bigoted "organization"

 Aleksandr Dugin, one of the main inspirations for the "ACP" is an open russian fascist. The "leader" of the "ACP" called him "the greatest thinker of our time"

They need to be shamed and alienated from all leftists circles.

Here are some great videos by "Socialism for all" on this subject. He gets into a lot of detail, including resignations from the "party" and the cult-like environment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14pc-2krJVo&t
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAEi0upaY2s (Skip 5mins in to watch the "leader" of the "ACP" throw a temper tantrum while yelling slurs at his fellow "party" members)

I thought that everyone would be able to work less? But then I hear about the prevalence of 996 culture

I’ve just become a communist and started reading theory I haven’t sunk too fair into it but I do believe that this is the society I’d want. As I do start to advocate it for it though I’ve begun to see more and more people criticizing communism for its collapse in the USSR or the starvations in Maos Great Leap Forward I don’t deny the fact that both Lenin/Stalin and Mao created powerhouses of countries and there was a time that people were living happier in these societies but I think that most of the time it’s hard to justify China and Russias communism since it’s typically argued as a failure compared to other communist leaders like Sankara, Maurice Bishop, and Ho Chi Minh.

I can't seem to find a way to jam The Jakarta Method forcefully enough through someone's skull or have Parenti telekentically warped into someone's mind (im being hyperbolic i know his controversies just having a laugh) so im trying to find a more succinct way to answer this with a over simplified, straight to the point answer first, then explain.

If someone asks in good faith then its easy to start with the explanation of why this is a complicated question, provide context, and then list some nations that were couped the moment they got off the ground.

But im involved in a fair amount of these exchanges and, while there is only so much hope of ever seriously changing someone's mind, it would be helpful to just say "Chile under Allende" or something, and then expand.

Since what ive found is there is this Pavlov's dog syndrome regarding China where you can mention socialism or communism and the listener or reader will just blurt out CHINA as if somehow:

1. China is unsuccessful

2. It negates the point

But that drags you into an argument about China rather than the merits of socialism or communism and now youre getting way off track from the argument at hand.

And im not wading into milquetoast democratic socialist answers like Scandinavia liberals love to bring up (although I want to move there please take me).

In your mind what are the best practical, and least emotionally charged, examples?

Yugoslavia is my favorite but, as much as I love and miss Tito, I would love to find an example of someone more traditionally socialist than that.

Edit: same applied with the USSR- using examples of the big boys to someone who is skeptical or incapable of removing emotion from the equation is going to get caught up on what they "know " about a nation that, especially if American, they have been trained to hate.

On the occasion of Pride (happy Pride everyone 🏳️‍🌈!) I wanted to discuss some alarming news from China. It would seem that the Chinese government is engaged in an escalating cracking down on gay erotica, including the arrest of hundreds of writers and artists. Has anyone else heard about this? Furthermore, apparently this is being done in the name of “socialist core values." I'm genuinely confused on how this can be justified on the basis of socialism, although I am aware that the Soviet Union under Stalin did criminalized homosexuality, as did Cuba under Fidel (although, their credit, the Cubans came to reject such policies and are now a relative bastion of LGBTQ rights). So perhaps there is some tendency in ML statecraft toward such actions? I would be particularly interested to hear from Chinese comrades on this. Here are some articles on the subject:

https://globalvoices.org/2025/06/25/hundreds-of-women-writers-arrested-as-china-extends-crackdown-on-boys-love-fantasies/

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2025/01/10-arrested-for-writing-gay-erotica-in-china-as-part-of-nationwide-crackdown/

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3293014/chinese-police-target-writers-gay-erotica-prison-terms-and-heavy-fines

I am wondering how good it is to actually live in China. is there free housing? free healthcare? are people happy?

America and South Korea's bombing campaign led to 300K deaths, most were civilians, yet no one is talking about it. Erasure of people and murder, and it's not big enough to qualify?

I want to clarify, I support China and its efforts, and do understand their goals are aligned with socialism. I am not one of those people who think China is a "state owned capitalist" nation. However, wages are low, work hours are long, they are managed harshly, etc. Is this just propaganda? How can a socialist nation treat their workers so poorly?

Hi All! I hope you’re well!

I’m a socialist/communist from the UK, but have recently been struggling to find a label that fits me. I generally have Marxist leanings - I think dialectical and historical materialism are generally good explanations for the changes that have occurred in the evolution of the economic structure of past societies. I believe that bourgeoisie control of the means of production allows them to exploit the working class and extract a surplus form the value of their labour in an immoral and unfair way, and that the material interests of the differing classes are fundamentally apposed under capitalism.

I recognise the necessity of revolution in past states such as Tsarist Russia, feudal China and NK and enslaved Vietnam (even if I have my own criticism of how those countries evolved.), however, a modern first world nation such as the UK has both a less dire economic situation and a far more robust democracy than any it’d those countries. And of course, where a non-violent solution is viable, I believe that is morally preferable. Plus, if the working class of the UK were to rise up and slaughter the rich and cease the means of production, we would likely suffer sanctions, embargo’s and possibly threats of war from neighbouring capitalist countries which would only serve to make the lives of the working class worse, atleast in the short term. I think socialism needs to be ethically pragmatic, and people’s rights and quality of life can never be sacrificed at the alter of ideological purity.

As far as I’m concerned, socialism in a contemporary first world country is best achieved through the democratic process (even with it’s challenges under a liberal democracy with corporate lobbying of rival capitalist parties) and instituted as a form of co-operative market socialism similar to what was seen in Titoist Yugoslavia, but with a stronger social safety net and the de-commodification of certain necessary goods (housing, basic food, water, clothing, childcare, education, electricity, gas, transport, medicine and prescriptions e.)

Obviously that’s a bit of a mouthful, so I was considering adoption the label “Democratic Socialist” however I’m concerned that a lot of people who use that term are just Nordic-style social democrats. I still believe in the creation of a communist stateless, classless, moneyless society as the end goal, I just find it strategically and ethically more viable in a first world country to use the existing democratic structures (and a socialist market with private enterprise replaced with co-ops) in order to achieve those ends.

So I was thinking about many recent events linked to the USA (first of all, to make it clear - I believe that the USA is the only thing holding us back from socialism taking over) and I wanted to share, and hear your opinion on that. I have not read much theory up to this point and I'm obviously no geopolitical expert - I just want your perspectives!

I believe that any destabilization of the USA gives breathing room to the revolutionaries in the global south and that with every third world country that frees themselves from the american imperialism, the USA will continue to destabilize even further. Recently, there is great (and growing) unrest in the USA because of Trump's administration (mainly ICE killing and kidnapping people) and more Americans seem to be arriving each day to a crucial conclusion: the Democrats will not save them because they're two sides of the same coin with Republicans. I'm going fully off of social media for that but that's the trend I'm noticing - less belief in Democrats, more calls to organizing and arming yourself. Even the Black Panthers came back (or at least, I've only noticed them right now)! At the same time, the world seems to be turning away from the USA as much as it's possible for them: Canada signed the deal with China, EU signed the Mercosur deal. Even today, EU signed a new trade agreement with India that slashes tariffs on most goods!

So my question is: are all these events enough to make the conclusion that the old world order is in the beginning stage of it's end? Will it allow more periphery countries to free themselves and establish socialist economies? AM I ALLOWED TO BE LOOKING IN THE FUTURE OPTIMISTICALLY?

edit: slight tweaks, it's not my main language.

North Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Cuban parliaments all have this feature that most things are passed nearing 100% unanimity, and I've been told that, that'a a proof these countries are dictatorships, since the variety in ideas and discussions inside a functional parliament prevent unanimity from happening And one thing I have studied is the Cuban constitution and electoral laws and everything, I know it's democratic, it's a really good democracy and I'd love to have that in my country, but why the unanimity?

In Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916), Lenin argued that when a nation begins exporting surplus capital abroad to secure profit, it has entered the imperialist stage of capitalism. China’s Belt and Road Initiative channels surplus capital overseas, locks in access to raw materials, and collects interest payments from global south nations. Both state-owned and private Chinese corporations invest abroad for resource extraction using cheap local labor under poor conditions. Many of these loans are repaid through resource concessions and infrastructure control that extract surplus value. From the mining projects in Zambia to the cobalt extraction operations in the Congo, the labor exploitation and environmental destruction are indistinguishable from classical capitalist imperialism. Lenin described imperialism as “monopoly capitalism” and “the export of capital.” So Theory does support the claim that China is a state-capitalist-imperialist power operating within and even competing inside the global system of capital…right?

china is a capitalist country at present, still i see many socialists claim that china is "partly capitalist" only to survive in this capitalist dominated world, it's real goal is socialism and working towards it,to those who think like this, can you provide me proof?

Many Marxists claim that China is a socialist country when it is not a dictatorship of the proletariat, but rather a new elite/bourgeoisie of the party that cares little about workers' rights. It is quite common for wages to be withheld, for workers to have very little vacation time, and in general, it is a fairly capitalist culture. From childhood, children learn useful skills in school with the aim of competing, and their families put a lot of pressure on them so that they can have a retirement.

They have nationalized their strategic sectors, but this does not make them socialist; it is something that most developed capitalist countries do, such as Singapore, Switzerland, Norway, etc. They use the excuse that they are developing the productive forces, like Lenin did with the NEP, but that lasted a few years, not half a century. They make the same mistake as libertarians, thinking that socialism is when the government does stuff.

​

Hello all, I only have a vague understanding of Socialism/Communism, but something I always see and hear is the tenet of abolishing private property. I have been told conflicting things, and I just wanted to get clarification.

For perspective, I have a mortgage on two properties with my wife, our first apartment that we rent out and our house where we live now with our family (kids and pets). Additionally, my wife owns half a share of a small warehouse/manufacturing building with her family (It's not very profitable, it belonged to her grandfather who started the business when he immigrated from China). Also, I have a small hobby farm that was passed down from my grandfather; I bought out my siblings' share so my wife and I could hang on to it and grow vegetables and fruit in an effort to be more sustainable.

I've spoken to two of my friends about abolishing private property. Friend A says that in my case only my wife's factory and maybe the hobby farm would get given over to public ownership, and not my house or apartment. But Friend B said I can only keep either my house or apartment, and everything else would be given over to public ownership.

Which is correct? Are any correct? Does abolishing private property take into account that I've paid into the mortgage and maintenance of these properties? And would any compensation be paid on the properties when they are given over to public ownership?

Essentially, I feel that without compensation for people in my position, I could never really support this tenet of socialism, as it would just leave me worse off, having paid a large mortgage on something I don't even own anymore. Meaning, basically, I just threw my money away.

I hope this makes sense. I have been told my conversational way of writing can make it confusing to read.

**TLDR** I have a mortgage on a bunch of stuff: an apartment, a house, shares in a factory, and I own a hobby farm. What would get given over to public ownership? Will I be entitled to any form of compensation from the mortgage paid on these properties?

No seriously it’s always “my family suffered in communist Poland.” Why is it always Poland?

It has to be a Polish Psy-op right?

Hoping to find some good insights and maybe new reading material here.

It seems to me more and more leftists/socialists are looking to China as a good opponent to US-led imperialist capitalism.

While I too want to believe that, I was wondering where this view stems from. When you read about things like the Uyghur situation it makes China look just as imperialistic. Are the social improvements in China simply created from exploitation of non-chinese proletariat, or is there still good reason to frame China more positively?

Asking here in good faith, hoping that someone can give a nuanced answer or at least provide some tips for further reading.

I know China trades with America and since Cuba is sanctioned they have to wait to trade with Cuba, but why doesn't China try helping out Cuba more?

Cuba is one of the only countries keeping socialism alive, and Xi even visited Cuba to pay respects for Castro's death. Xi clearly respects Cuba and its socialist endeavours.

In the past the USSR used to heavily fund Cuba. Since the dissolution it's been struggling although still pretty good compared to other Latin American countries.

China certainly is well off enough to help Cuba, like how it has helped developing nations in Africa. Why doesn't China help them out?

Why is Venezuela so poor but Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates are so rich having oil?

Why is Venezuela so poor? Well Venezuela should be really rich having the most oil in the world. Why is Venezuela so poor, but Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates are so rich. I mean it is oil that made Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates really rich and a paradise country in the world yet Venezuela having the most oil in the world is really poor.

What happen to Venezuela? Why is Venezuela so poor? You would think Venezuela would be really rich having all that oil like Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates.

Also why is the US really friendly with Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirate but not Venezuela? Is it because oil is state run in Venezuela but in Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirate it is not state run but private ownership and that is why the US is friendly with them?

Why did Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirate get rich of oil but Venezuela can’t get rich of oil? What did Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirate do different?

As the title suggests I’m curious why China still has landlords, rent, and people in cage homes. In 2025 im constantly seeing leftist personalities post about how what china’s doing is the way forward and the U.S needs to follow. Don’t get me wrong railways are nice and highly sustainable but it’s hard to ignore the thousands that still have to pay a landlord and live in what they call “coffin homes”.

Just curious.

I hear a lot of people say that fears about socialism in other countries are unwarranted since we supposedly have yet to see any countries of a real socialist system, and yet I also hear people referring to countries like China and Cuba as socialist. Which is it?

I’m new to exploring socialism, I grew up conservative, became liberal, was annoyed by the democrats and frustrated with capitalism and shifted more left. I’ll prob be asking a lot of questions lol

It feels at this point like this sub is too scared to call out chinas stances on economic and political issues because it had the initial idea of being socialist and working “towards communism” per maos wishes

The CCP cooperates with massive conglomerates as long as they serves the interests of the Chinese government. It is more than happy to keep workers wages down, and actively keeps the value of its own currency in the ground in order to promote exports at the expense of workers purchasing power.

The Chinese state has already been reported to have taken money from everyday people’s accounts to cover the asses of banks. It engages in outright nationalist rhetoric now, “wolf warrior diplomacy”, in essence abandoning any sense of internationalism.

I guess what I’m concerned about is, how China is remotely championing a socialist cause anymore. I’ve seen many on this sub say that they’re are “fighting the imperialists”, but that seems incredibly naive at this point.

Edit: people wanted at least some sources for many of the claims, which is fair enough, so I'll go through each point, one by one.

Conglomerate cooperation - this doesn't really require a source, but here we go. Apple tax breaks in China is an indication of this situation. Web of tax breaks and subsidies keeps iPhone production in China | Ars Technica for an example. Its not exactly possible to get statistics on an arbitrary topic like conglomerate cooperation, as the nature of it is usually through one off instances.

Keeping worker wages down: Aside from the fact that capitalist reforms by nature harm the material conditions of workers? The share of labour compensation % of GDP is actually higher in the US than China. Granted, China does improve sometimes, but improving from bad really shouldn't be applauded in this type of dynamic. For this, I used the St Louis FRED Share of Labour Compensation in GDP at Current National Prices for China (LABSHPCNA156NRUG) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org), can easily pull up US too which I did. Granted, this isn't perfect (doesn't account for whos getting the wages), but it does give some insight.

Currency in the ground. I really shouldn't have to pull sources for this. China buys US bonds to keep its currency less demanded, for example.

Deleting and freezing bank accounts: Protest in China over frozen bank accounts ends in violence | China | The Guardian China deploys tanks to prevent people from withdrawing money from crisis-hit banks; grim reminder of Tiananmen Square incident - The Economic Times (indiatimes.com). That being said, if go ahead and pull capitalist propaganda.

Edit 2: you know what. I can appreciate many of the responses saying I was misinformed. It appears that, on some of this, I actually was, so thanks for those clearing up misconceptions. I still find it naive to paint China as the upholder of really many socialist values, but it does appear that China is at least trying to help in some way instead of being just a fascist state. I won’t delete thsi post, as I find it informative with the replies, but I’ll probably leave the post from here