Seeing purely right wing arguments and narratives got somewhat annoying, so I wrote a bit of information about this topic.

Why do companies want H-1B workers?

If an H-1B worker loses their job, they must find a job in 60 days to remain in the country. Since tech jobs take a long time to find and interview for, this effectively means that H1-B tech workers are deported upon termination.

The ability to deport workers "at-will" by firing them is like crack cocaine for capitalists. They work less than 80 hours a week? Deported. They join a union? Deported. They refuse to follow unethical business practices? Deported. They resist against verbal, physical, or sexual abuse? Deported.

On top of this, due to low pay in the worker's home country, H-1B workers can be paid less as well.

It is a no-brainer for capitalists, and is primarily guided by their desire for power over the working class. It has nothing to do with “DEI”, "woke HR departments”, conspiracies about Jews, "white genocide" or any of the other typical right wing delusions.

How H-1B workers reduce American workers’ pay.

The right wing narrative about pay is that assisting the poor/lower class in any way results in reduced pay and quality of life for the middle and upper class because middle and upper class skilled workers will be the ones paying for it.

The reality is the exact opposite of that: In a highly competitive labor market where capitalists have leverage over workers via ownership of the means of production, the most desperate job applicants set the wages.

As a result, providing assistance to the most desperate applicants increases the pay across the board. Safety nets such as unemployment insurance, medical insurance, and food stamps/assistance ensure that an unemployed worker has time to search for a fair wage instead of accepting a lowball offer.

Internationalism

This is also why leftists are internationalist. Quality of life improvements in India and other countries will reduce opportunities for outsourcing American labor. Intelligent labor unions and left wing political parties support each other across borders because they understand this.

While the recent ~50 yr reduction in American quality of life can be primarily attributed to imperialist spending on the cold war, handouts to the rich, imperialism turning inward, and capitalism in general, another large part of this change was the fall of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union showed Americans an alternative to capitalism, and forced the enemy American government to meet or exceed the Soviet Union’s standard of living to avoid the spread of militant socialist sentiment. When there are no alternatives to capitalism, capitalists have free rein.

When Indians are easily exploited, Americans are easily exploited as well. Unlike China, India does not have a ruling socialist party to protect its workers and move the country towards improvements of worker pay and quality of life over the long term. Their government is also far more right wing than America’s, and effectively uses divide-and-conquer tactics to distract and suppress worker resistance.

Side note: Isolationist policies

Some conservatives and liberals may think that the solution here is isolationist policies to avoid competition with countries with cheaper labor. Although there are various issues with this, the primary misunderstanding here is about who is in charge in America: the capitalists. Our government works in the interests of the rich, and will not stop outsourcing just because the workers are unhappy with it, unless there is a risk of militant leftist and union opposition.

Some portions of the MAGA right and the tech worker community are learning this now after being betrayed by the tech capitalist and corporate elite. Ideally, they would recognize their working class position and move to the left to fight against capitalist exploitation. Unfortunately, considering that American divide and conquer tactics are top-notch, tech workers and the MAGA right will probably move further from reality and develop more white supremacist and fascist beliefs instead.

Solutions to the H-1B issue

If the H-1B program continues to exist, H-1B workers must be given protection from their employer via a longer grace period or a different mechanism for deportation.

Why hire a highly paid worker when you can have a slave? Employers love the system as is. Cutting off their power over H-1B workers will increase worker power and pay across the board.

Alternatively, reduce the number of H1-B workers. The right wing loves this for typical right wing (white supremacist) reasons. The left wing has varying arguments about it. Some try to side with the international working class and say that all workers have a right to these jobs, regardless of their birth country. Others say that it is brain drain to take high quality workers from poorer countries and that this is another form of imperialism.

In my opinion, the topic is somewhat academic as there is no point in trying to convince the American working class to work against their own interests for the sake of the global working class. They simply will not do it regardless of if it is the right or moral thing to do, and usually aren't even willing to work towards any working class interests at all, regardless of country. It is mainly an educational topic, ie. something for leftists to discuss to get a better understanding of Marxism and left-wing economic theories.

“Low-trust society,” a natural and inevitable result of capitalism.

There is also a broad right wing frustration with corruption, insecurity, and inefficiency, which unfortunately drowns out any left wing arguments about the subjects. The complaints are related to "low-trust society", MBAs, crime, etc.

The right wing may think that Indians are genetically predisposed to this, which is obviously nonsense. The reality is that "low-trust society" is the natural result of capitalism, individualism, and strategy of tension. America will naturally tend in this direction even if they do not "import" Indian capitalist and individualist culture.

Under a capitalist competitive market, companies and individuals who are not ruthless, exploitative, and willing to bend the rules will eventually lose out to companies who are.

When you remove the nostalgia the right has, you will realize this has been happening for centuries. But if we look at more recent events, there have been some that shifted the culture greatly, specifically the 2008 global financial crisis. Big banks and bankers effectively getting off scot free taught Americans that there was no point in playing by the rules. This probably had a much bigger effect on corporate culture than many people realize.

Monopoly Capitalism

American monopolists contribute further to this degradation of society. Monopolist companies that extract superprofits are able to ignore internal corruption, embezzlement, etc. without collapsing since they have no competitors.

The result is that MBAs can sacrifice long term gains to take credit for perceived short term improvement, brown-nosers and political operatives can manipulate and ladder-climb their way to the top, corrupt employees can embezzle money, hire their friends, sell access to positions, etc. Basically a bunch of variations of the principal agent problem.

Venture Capitalism

Venture capitalists make new companies monopolies by default. The "leading" companies in "competitive" markets today can be horribly inefficient and unprofitable because they are all running on VC money.

Landlords leach as much tech worker salary as they can, tech workers brown nose in tech companies with absurd amounts of funding for high salaries, CEOs sell fantasies to clueless VCs, slightly less clueless VCs make backroom deals with founders to funds disappear into their own bank accounts, adding to the percentage fees they take from the total.

None of these are examples of an efficient market, an “invisible hand”, or a "high-trust society", but the typical right winger that jokes about communists not understanding economics is blind to the inefficiency caused by this capitalist economic planning.

Rent-Seeking

Why are these investors so desperate to make these tech companies? Because they want a chance to form a monopoly that can put a tax on entire markets.

Think about social media. Yes, it is a lot of fun scrolling, but is it really worth allocating trillions of dollars to? Does it really take trillions of dollars of valuation to make a glorified database and recommendation system? An inexperienced tech worker might say yes, because they are so deep into the lie, but those that truly understand tech will realize it does not. Their valuations are in the trillions because they have access to customer's attention, which they sell via advertising. Their multi-billion-dollar profits do not come from their own productivity, but from the productivity of their advertising customers. Their own productivity is minimal, but when they can tax nearly every productive company on earth, it does not matter.

Virtually every exciting and "innovative" part of the tech industry involves finding a new way to leech off of actually productive companies and workers. An absurd portion of American investment is being put into creating middlemen rather than physical products and scientific research. Robotics? Semiconductors? Material science? Why do that when you can create an app? Pure software tech startups definitely do add some value, but the current situation does not give the perception of a "high-trust society", especially when rent-seeking and middleman companies are the most rewarded.

This is all the result of monopolies and bad economic planning. Capitalism is tending towards monopolized and socialized production approaches, while giving absolute power and "freedom" to the capitalists that own these monopolies. What a surprise.

“High-Trust” America

The difference between "high-trust" America and "low-trust" India, Russia, and China has a lot more to do with America's temporary economic lead than any temporary ethical or legal difference between these countries. Even the differences that exist are decreasing every day.

The landlord wants as much of your wage and your company's profits as they can take. The food, grocery, and household product-related companies want as much as you can afford to spend. The hospitals and insurance companies will happily save your life in exchange for your slavery. The capitalist government politicians and figureheads want your taxes, education, safety net, and infrastructure, because the defense industry isn't happy with only $700 billion. The army wants your life, because the oil industry, the car industry, and even the pistachio industry want the superprofits that can be extracted via imperialism. We live in a vast, multilayered, and interconnected world, with each group snatching as much of our labor as they can get their hands on.

We are "high-trust" because we are currently affluent and not yet desperate. This will inevitably change over time, as the "inflation" (multilayered price gouging and profit taking) wears people and companies down.

Workers create all value, and yet hold almost none of it. Until these workers recognize that they are being robbed, they will continue to be robbed more and more, and there is nothing high-trust about that.

Strategy of Tension

We can not talk about "low-trust society" without talking about the strategy of tension.

Wikipedia:

"A strategy of tension (Italian: strategia della tensione) is a political policy wherein violent struggle is encouraged rather than suppressed. The purpose is to create a general feeling of insecurity in the population and make people seek security in a strong government"

I won't go too into detail as it is out of scope, but this really kicked off after the George Floyd protests. American police departments effectively refused to do their job in retaliation for the resistance against them. They force Americans to choose: either give police complete power and do not resist their violent and dictatorial actions whatsoever, or live in a lawless city/state/country.

It is a false choice of course, but since American police forces act more like gangs than a military (loyal to themselves, not the country or constitution), Americans are stuck with this choice.

There is a line between unethical and illegal, and normally people stay very far away from that line. When laws are not strictly enforced, people go further into unethical and illegal territory than they normally would, towards a “low-trust”, unproductive, and dangerous society.

the first i came across the productive forces concept was in some sort of china context. china argues it can't have truly achieved socialism unless it has developed the productive forces that allow for the transition, etc. it occurs to me that i never came across it before encountering writings on modern china. is this a concept within marxist thought before china did its 'opening up' and everything?

Hi,

I am planning to start a continental philosophy (Adorno, Deleuze, Nietzsche) reading group in Montreal.

DM me for a link to the discord server.

The plan is to make it relatively low paced and friendly for people with all backgrounds. Maybe we can try to set up a meeting in person once a month.

I hear there is lot of corruption in Brazil and Argentina could that be why there is a lot of poverty and social inequality.

What happen to Brazil and Argentina that they not like Sweden or Denmark and other first world countries.

Also the government seems really poor and have little money unlike first world countries.

And same problem in Brazil and Argentina.

As the title states I am a conservative who rarely engages with Marxist thought, as I do not believe the majority of the contemporary left is from the Marxist family, and simply didn't take the time to learn about it. I wanted a little clarification on the basic doctrine/overarching idea of Marxism. Lazier conservatives have characterized Marxism as simply a world view of oppressor/oppressed. However from my little research, I have the impression that Marx did not rely on anything similar to the critical theories of the 20th century, but simply attempted to demonstrate via labor theory of value that the proletariat was oppressed/exploited. Would this be fairly accurate in a very broad sense? I just don't want to straw man anybody.

Hello everyone. Im writing a research paper on the topic of evaluating the role of peasants in revolutionary movements via a comparative study of the works of Marx, Lenin and Mao and understanding their modern relevance. I did want to research on Trotskyst perspectives but decided against it.

As of now, Ive read a few works of Marx like the Manifesto, 18th Brumarire of Louis Napoleon, Letters to Zasulich, Capital (Vol I, On the So called Primitive Accumulation) and two secondary sources on a marxist perspective on food theory and their views on the russian communes. Im currently reading State and the Revolution by Lenin but cant find more sources. Are there any other works I could read to solidify my paper (particularly for Lenin and Mao but im happy to read more on Marx if u think there is something imp) ? Thank you in advance!

So over the holidays my college freshman cousin and I got into a little debate about communism, socialism, fascism, and just terminology in general. I think her and I were basically on the same page, but I had some problems with how she used some of the terms. For instance, she tried to claim that the USSR was fascist. I responded by kinda suggesting that she maybe was not looking at things from a material/historical perspective and was just applying terms ideologically. The USSR I think definitely grew out of a workers movement and in conflict with the global capitalist class. So to me if something is communist it can’t also be fascist which is rooted in supporting the global interests of capital.

However, I let the discussion drop because I had the thought that well maybe the term fascism means something different today than it did 10 years ago when I was on Reddit and twitter discussing these things. Maybe the term “fascism” is more about just authoritarianism generally and just carries a strong negative connotation. It’s more a judgement than a description of a movement rooted in history and class struggle. Is that what “fascism” means now? If so I guess it might make sense to describe the USSR as fascist. Is it okay for the word to mean that now? Any thoughts?

Karl Marx and his progeny demonstrated, using exacting logic, the workings of a capitalist system.

But what are the results of these workings?

That a very small portion of the population exerts dictatorial control over all facets of human social life — this is the true nature of capitalism. Capitalism’s sole and exclusive function is to ensure the continuation of bourgeois supremacy. The bourgeoisie know it, but the rest of the population does not.

Therefore, we must always make sure that we designate the clear enemy, the bourgeoise. If our politics does not orient itself around demonstrating this enemy, then we have a false politics.

I really like to arrange furniture, clutter ande decor both in games and real life and soon i'm about to buy my own house and i'd like to go around scavenging in flee markets and my own family's old stuff for some fancy looking stuff (i'd like old useless things to show off like a gramophone or an old shaving kit, things like that). However my bf (who is a monarchist btw) made me notice that my choice of furniture and decor may be a bourgoise legacy and go against my socialist beliefs (i'm actually AnCom but that doesn't really matter), is he right? I didn't think about that that way.

(This is just some context; feel free to skip to the next paragraph): I recently came across the NPM (New Public Management) reforms that were making their rounds globally during the neoliberal upswing in the 80s. I'm still very new to socialist politics and theory, and I've been surrounded by people blaming government regulations and the public sector in my country (Norway) for inflation, rising prices and stagnant wages, and struggle for the past decades. When I began reading more about our history, it surprised me to learn how the labor party (currently in government) has been spearheading liberal and free market reforms steadily since the 80s, implementing the NPM model in areas of society such as healthcare. There hasn't been a total uprooting of the welfare state, obviously, but Norway and the labor party are very different today from what they used to be.

Does any of you have any reading suggestions on NPM from a Marxist/socialist perspective? Books, articles, videos, anything is fine. If you have any thoughts on the subject as well, I'd be very interested in hearing about it.

Who decides when the State can be abolished?

My Thoughts:

The centrality of the "withering away of the state" to Marx's framework is not based on the arbitrary will or edict of an individual or centralized body nor reliant on it. It arises organically from the material conditions of society evolving and the contradictions of class society resolving.

This transitional stage in the social revolution (the dictatorship of the proletariat) acts as a knife to the neck, decapitating the old bourgeois order and liberating the seeds of a classless society. Such a state is fundamentally different from the capitalist state—it is but a transitional structure aimed at repressing the residual bourgeois resistance in the Community and reorganizing society on communal lines. It is not an end in itself, but rather a means to an end of the working class.

When the state will wither away depends upon the progress of the necessary organisation, at some point, the need for a coercive apparatus to mediate class antagonism will fade. (A process that is dialectical: in abolishing itself as a class, the proletariat establishes a classless society, while on its side, the temporary state, which exists only as an effect of class antagonisms, becomes emptied of purpose and, eventually, disbands.)

So it’s not that you have a leader or a committee that decides, but rather the material conditions of the society in transition which give rise to that decision. This process is directed by the collective consciousness and practice of the working masses. The functions of the state become obsolescent as the communal networks and cooperative mechanisms mature and the self-organization of society spreads, rendering the state as unnecessary in the same way that the self-organization of society renders the state obsolescent.

It is important to acknowledge that this withering process is not automatic or guaranteed. If the transitional state hardens or becomes a ruling bureaucracy, it threatens to reproduce the systems of hierarchy it sought to abolish. That is why the alertness of the proletariat and its participation in the revolutionary process are the keys. Fading into obsolescence of stateness entails more than just a passive abandonment of the mechanisms of power it carries; it means actively (partaking in) dismantling them.

In short, the state will not wither away by way of edict, but by virtue of the proletariat’s own revolutionary activity, the abolition of class distinctions, and the establishment of a social order grounded in the free association of producers. The working class, mobilized as it is with the same objective of its emancipation, remains the sole power that decides on this transition.

Did I get it right?

Note: I am an Anarcho-Communist (for more info: read Peter Kropotkin's Works such as "The Conquest of Bread") so I may have less knowledge on the Marxist View on this topic than others in this Subreddit

I thought it might be a fun exercise. Of course, Marx says everything’s value comes from labor, but I’m looking for a more specific explanation for each commodity.

1) A work of abstract art

2) An expensive house in poor condition, but in a great area.

3) The amount we tip (this might be a bad one)

4) Add something for other people in the comments to explain!

I'm need assistance with a situation I've been running into idk if this is the right place to ask but, I am a delivery driver, a member of the working class, how do I explain and or brooch the subject with other leftists about doing outreach to people with seemingly regressive ideas like people who are not politically educated at all but use like ableist slurs because, I believe they are not like hyper online, and are not informed and are repulsed by the lecturing from what I perceive to be condescending dbags which pushesthem right or leaves them open to radicalization from the right. but people who I think are sympathetic to us. They aren't racist or malicious, they are seemingly anti authoritarian seemingly anti corporate n banker n anti elite. I'm told to forget them if aren't where we are they are intentionally malicious and not just uninformed but i disagree that is the case inherently. I feel like they're idealistic n actually counter productive.

Idk n idk enough about how to approach this correctly or if i'm maybe thinking about this incorrectly

I'm not asking how to talk to people about their language I feel like I'm being lectured by the same people who look down their nose at my when I'm working n of I should just disregard them idk I feel like materialist analysis should lead people to not conclude people are beyond help or being taught

Any advice would be great n greatly appreciated

I'm looking at dialectics and trying to learn about them as much as possible (primarily from the perspective of Marxism, but Hegel and others are also welcome). Dialectical contradiction is not the same as logical contradiction, but are there any connections or opposites in how they behave? For example,

If we have a logical contradiction, are these opposing forces also dialectically contradicting each other? (I'd think not, since in dialectics, these two things have to exist in order to oppose each other),

What about the other way around, if we have a dialectical contradiction, are the opposing forces logically contradictory? (I'd also say no for the same reason as above).

Could one consider something like "in dialectical contradiction to 'reality' "? For logical contradiction if something contradicts tautology, it is then false. What can we conclude if something contradicts something unchangeable? (I'm not sure of the answer here, I'm reluctant to say that is false or nonexistent, since it is in contradiction with something, so due to my previous answer, it has to exist, but maybe it will cease existing soon?)

After a contradiction is resolved, is this resolution permanent? (I've seen people say yes, but I don't see it. Especially from Marxist perspective. A society might resolve contradictions of feudalism and come to capitalism, but be utterly destroyed due to some circumstances, negating all their development, degrading back into feudalism. The "bombed back to the stone age" scenario might cause that, possibly.)

Any other similarities and differences that one might think are notable?

My answers might be incorrect, feel free to go into details on how they are incorrect, if so or expand upon them if you think they are correct but missing some crucial observations.

I'd love for references to these, and preferably from Marxist sources, since I'd love to refer to them. If those are unavailable, Hegelian and other sources are welcome, but I'd love to prioritize Marxist ones, since I'm doing it for a seminar or differences in Marxist and logical contradictions.

I define myself as an unusual Marxist, more of an anarchist-communist or Libertarian communist, so already like this it is impossible for me to conceive of democracy in a nation since the nation itself is formed by a hierarchy, but leaving that aside, I understand that nations like Lenin's USSR were much more democratic than any other nation ever had, but seriously I can't understand how a nation like North Korea can represent the well-being of the proletariat, when it is practically a monarchy in which father and son pass power between each other, so they asked me, for those who support the idea that the North Korean republic is democratic, what are their theses?

I understand the basics of how the family model we know today came to be, but still have lots of questions regarding families and romance as well! It is kind of hard to reimagine what family and love can look like because we have been so conditioned into believing that what is considered 'normal' today is just in our nature. What do you think families and relationships/romances would look like in a Communist society that has already been well established for like a decade or so? Maybe not the best way to ask the question, but I am just so curious how, as humans, we would naturally approach concepts such as family and/or romance/relationships. What do you believe is the Marxist take?

The reason why I'm including intersectional theory is that there is a lot of ideological overlap, and intersectional theory is in large part based on Marxist philosophy. I am in a vet tech program right now, and I've noticed some interesting narratives and language used. I wanted to know if there are any voices on this subject, as I have always had an interest in both philosophy and veterinary medicine.

I've dabbled with Marxism and many of it's variations (Leninism, Stalinism, Bolshevism, Syndicalism, Maoism to name a few) and I'm honestly confused by them all. I understand that they are all derived from Karl Marx's ideas but they seem to differ in how one achieves the end goal. Socialism and Communism are great examples of this.

Is there like a flow chart or a tree showing their relations, similarities and differences?

I just started reading Marx’s Capital, and I want to make sure that I’m understanding the first bit correctly. Forgive me if my questions don’t make sense, I’m just a high school student.

1) Is use-value how useful a commodity is to us, and is exchange-value a representation of how much we could get for a commodity on the market?

2) How is value different from exchange value?

3) Is it a contradiction that Marx writes that labor is a criterion for exchange value and that he acknowledges that labor can produce something useless?

Edit: I think I understand it now! Thank you to all for your smart and detailed responses. To be honest I didn’t expect a Marxist community to be this welcoming (no offense lol). I’m sure I’ll be back with more questions sometime soon!

People say Venezuela became socialist. That killed their free market prosperity is that true? As a result of a collapsing economy in the face of hard socialism, they went deep into debt and tried price controls, along with trying to print their way out of it. Printing money devalues it and you get the classic "too much money chasing too few goods". Eventually, people lost all faith in the currency.

Is that really what happen to Venezuela money or was there other factors that lead to massive inflation?

Number of people on the left say the reason the Republican Party and Democratic Party is so corrupt so pro big businesses is because of political lobbying.

Can some one here explain how political lobbying works and why it is almost like bribing. WHY this is legal and why in Europe they have stricter laws on political lobbying.

In the US Republican Party and Democratic Party pro big businesses and is rotten to core. But how does this political lobbying work that make them that way.

People also make reference other reason the Clinton foundation so rich and wealthy is other reason they so corrupt so pro big businesses that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama have millions of dollars the same with Republican Party like Bush or Trump and they far remove from the working class people. How did the foundation get to pint they have millions and millions of dollars being so rich.

Heyo all!

Before I turn to my question, I'd say a bit about my background. I'm a philosophy MA student, hence my journey to Marxism was mediated via the classical German and French philosophers. Essentially Merleau-Ponty, Husserl, Kant and all the way to Lukács. In addition, I'm also a student at a Film Academy where I do audiovisual work. I decided for the latter due to my frustration from philosophy, ever reading without any acts of proper laboring creation. So rather than "pure art" of any kind, it was the more manual and tangible things that attracted me.

With that out of the way, I'd love to ask for an advice. How to perform the artistic praxis as a Marxist? Don't get me wrong, I don't intend to fall for the transcendental view of art and the justification of its production for its own purposes: "art for art's sake". That was never my intention. Yet, what is the alternative? Sure, I can focus on Marxist themes: exploitation, alienation, capitalist produced violence and such. But is that enough? Shouldn't there be a specific form - rather than content - pertaining to Marxist artistic praxis? Does Marx/others say anything about the role of art in revolution?

Where I come from (Czechia), in the leftist circles, the view of art as an imaginative practice has been popular later. Art as the means to imagine a different world, a non-capitalist. I have nothing against this and I used to like it a lot. Take a novel in speculative fiction that paints a picture of a socialist utopia (or capitalist dystopia worse than that of today). Yet, I feel like this isn't enough.

Another thing I can think of is "giving voice to those whom it has been denied". Essentially sharing the standpoint of the proletariat with others. Sure, but isn't that appropriating and patronizing?

Another issue is the structure of the cultural institutions in my homeland. Do I really want to support state-funded galleries? Commercial cinemas? Private institutions? How meaningful is anti-capitalist art when presented within capitalist institutions? And then of course there's the question of the spectator. Galleries here are frequented by the midddle class, especially the pseudo-independent galleries. How to reliably confront them?

A lot of questions, I know, sorry for that! I'm genuinely at a crossroads though and I'd appreciate some help here. I don't want to fall into a bourgeois conception of the artistic praxis.

Few people know, but in Soviet Russia and the USSR of 1918-1991, the role of the Communist Party in the Constitution was different in different periods.

The first Soviet Constitution was adopted in 1918, and this Constitution did not mention the Communist Party at all. Its entire text was focused on the Soviets and the power of the working people. This was not yet the Constitution of the USSR, since the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic had not yet been transformed into it at that time.

The second Soviet Constitution was adopted in 1924. This was already the Constitution of the USSR. The party was also not mentioned in this Constitution. In fact, although the party actually has enormous power in the country, constitutionally power belongs to people far from being based on the principle of party affiliation.

Only in 1936 was a Constitution adopted that spelled out the leading role of the party (in Article 126). At the same time, a reservation was made that the party united the most active and conscious citizens from the ranks of the working class, working peasants and the working intelligentsia.

So, from the moment of the October Revolution until 1936, there was no constitutional requirement for workers to obey the party leadership. However, under Stalin, such a requirement was introduced at the level of the Constitution.

In 1977, in the new Constitution, under Brezhnev, the words about the most active and conscious citizens from the ranks of the working class, working peasants and working intelligentsia uniting in the party were removed, but the leading role of the party was already spelled out at the beginning of the Constitution, in Article 6. All those who were looking for a way to work less in party affiliation were actively joining the party.

Soon Perestroika happens, the USSR collapses, and these same people begin to actively call themselves liberals, conservatives, nationalists and say that they joined the party only because it was accepted, but in fact they always hated communist ideology.

Preamble

Guided by the principles of Marxism-Leninism, the Socialist Federal Republic proclaims the dictatorship of the proletariat, aiming to abolish the exploitation of man by man and to construct a classless society. Founded on popular sovereignty and the centrality of the working class, the Republic guarantees the democratic participation of the masses in all spheres of political, economic, and social life.

Endorsed by the masses, this Constitution establishes and secures their power over the economic and political apparatus. It ensures their leading role in the construction of socialism.

Title I: The Organization of Political Power

Article 1: Nature and Composition of Representative Institutions

1. Popular sovereignty is exercised through two assemblies: a) The Federal Party Assembly (FPA), the central organ of economic planning and state management, representing the organized working class within the Communist Party. b) The People's Assembly of the Republic (PAR), a consultative and legislative body addressing societal matters, reflecting the diversity of popular opinions within the Republic.

2. Unity between the two assemblies is ensured by the principle of democratic centralism, guaranteeing the harmonization of decisions in the service of proletarian interests.

Article 2: The Federal Party Assembly

1. The FPA is composed of 650 members elected by direct and imperative suffrage within local soviets, with seats allocated proportionally to the number of workers represented by each soviet. Election days in soviets are declared national holidays.

2. Candidates for the FPA must: a) Be members of the Communist Party. b) Have at least seven years of work experience in a productive or service sector. c) Be of legal age and possess full rights and capacities as citizens. d) Not have previously served more than two terms in the FPA. e) Not exceed an age limit of 85 years. f) Have completed their civic service.

3. The FPA is responsible for: a) Centralized economic planning and strategic production orientations. b) Managing state departments and institutions, national security, and diplomatic affairs.

Article 3: The People's Assembly of the Republic

1. The PAR is composed of 600 representatives elected by direct universal suffrage through a proportional system with a representation threshold of 1%.

2. Electoral lists may reflect diverse interests, including cultural, religious, social, or regional perspectives.

3. Candidates for the PAR must: a) Be of legal age and possess full rights and capacities as citizens. b) Not have served more than two consecutive terms in the PAR. c) Have completed their civic service. d) Be registered on an electoral list recognized by the state.

4. The PAR is responsible for: a) Drafting and voting on laws concerning societal matters. b) Proposing legislative initiatives to be submitted to a referendum if requested by 30% of its members.

Article 4: Relations Between the FPA and the PAR

1. Five-year economic plans and their annual adjustments, drafted by the FPA, are submitted for validation by the PAR.

2. If a qualified majority in the PAR rejects the plan or any of its parts, it is returned to the FPA for amendment.

3. In the event of persistent disagreement, a joint commission composed equally of FPA and PAR members is formed to develop a compromise. This commission is supervised by local elected officials, soviet-appointed representatives, and a panel of qualified experts who arbitrate discussions in the nation's and proletariat's collective interest.

4. If a law passed by the PAR contravenes the fundamental principles of the Republic and scientific socialism, the FPA is empowered to veto it. This veto must be justified and submitted to a supervisory commission constituted similarly to the one described in paragraph 3 of this article.

Article 5: Budget Development and Management

1. The state budget is the primary tool for implementing the objectives set by the five-year plan and the laws adopted by the PAR. It ensures resource allocation aligned with the priorities defined by soviets, the PAR, and the FPA.

2. Budget Drafting Process: a) The FPA drafts an annual budget proposal in alignment with five-year plan objectives, consulting local soviets and representative unions. b) The budget proposal is submitted to the PAR, which examines its conformity with social, environmental, and cultural priorities and the laws it has passed. c) If the PAR rejects any part of the budget by a qualified majority, the FPA must revise its proposal within thirty days.

3. Adoption and Implementation: a) The annual budget is adopted upon joint approval by the PAR and the FPA. b) Once adopted, it is executed by the state under the supervision of the FPA and local soviets, ensuring proper use and adherence to strategic orientations.

4. Strategic Reserve: A portion of the national budget is allocated to a strategic reserve for emergencies or unforeseen needs, as defined by procedures set by the FPA and the PAR.

5. Soviet Participation: Local soviets actively participate in budget development and monitoring by submitting their proposals and observations to the central organs.

Title II: Mechanisms of Popular Democracy

Article 5: Participation of the Masses

1. Any bill or program rejected by a simple majority in the PAR can be submitted to a national referendum if requested by 30% of its members.

2. Local soviets are required to organize regular assemblies to consult workers on major national decisions.

3. If a petition initiated by the people gathers signatures from 5% of the electorate, it will be considered as a draft bill by the PAR.

Article 6: Popular Oversight and Transparency

1. Members of the FPA and the PAR can be recalled at any time:

For the FPA, by a vote from local soviets.

For the PAR, through a petition signed by 5% of the electorate, followed by an absolute majority vote in a national referendum.

1. The debates and decisions of the FPA and PAR are made public, except in matters of national security.

2. Budget Oversight: a) The implementation of the budget is subject to a semi-annual evaluation, with results published to ensure transparency of public finances. b) Any misuse of public funds contrary to the objectives of the five-year plan or the Constitution is subject to administrative and judicial sanctions.

Title III: Fundamental Principles of Socialism

Article 7: Centrality of the Working Class

1. The Communist Party, the vanguard of the proletariat, leads the Republic in accordance with the principle of proletarian dictatorship.

2. The interests of workers take precedence over all other considerations, and no institution may act contrary to these interests.

Article 8: Revolutionary Unity and Discipline

1. Democratic centralism ensures the subordination of minorities to majority decisions and unity in revolutionary action.

2. Any deviation by officials, party members, or citizens vested with a state mandate from the principles democratically adopted within the FPA is punishable under the law, within the framework of a fair and just trial.

3. These restrictions are suspended during parliamentary debates on the drafting and revision of the five-year plan within the FPA, as well as within soviets during delegate elections.

Title IV: Special Provisions

Article 9: Constitutional Amendments

1. This Constitution can only be amended with the approval of two-thirds of the FPA and PAR members meeting in a joint session, followed by a popular referendum.

Article 10: Entry into Force

1. This Constitution enters into force immediately after its adoption by national referendum and its ratification by the Central Committee of the Communist Party.

Title V: Citizen Rights and Fundamental Principles of the Republic

Article 11: Rights and Duties of Citizens

1. Every citizen of the Socialist Federal Republic enjoys political, economic, social, and cultural rights guaranteed by the state. These rights uphold the fundamental principles of the Republic: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, Justice." These rights are inalienable and exercised in the interest of the community and progress.

2. Citizens have the right: a) To participate directly or indirectly, through their soviets, in the management of political and economic affairs. b) To remunerated employment ensuring a dignified life and personal fulfillment. c) To free, comprehensive, and high-quality education. d) To universal and free healthcare. e) To decent housing suited to their needs, provided or subsidized by the state. f) To freedom of expression and association, within the framework of respecting socialist principles and combating bourgeois and reactionary ideologies.

3. Citizens have the duty: a) To contribute, through their work, to collective prosperity. b) To defend the Republic against any attempt at capitalist restoration. c) To promote values of equality, solidarity, and social justice.

Article 12: Equality of Citizens

1. All citizens are equal before the law, regardless of gender, national or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, or philosophical convictions, whether actual or perceived.

2. The Republic is committed to eradicating all forms of discrimination and oppression inherited from the bourgeois order.

Article 13: Freedoms and Democratic Guarantees

1. Freedom of thought and debate is guaranteed to all citizens, within the limits of respecting the principles outlined in the Constitution.

2. No citizen may be arrested, detained, or deprived of their rights without a justified decision by competent authorities, in accordance with legal procedures.

3. Every citizen accused of a crime or offense has the right to a fair, public, and prompt trial.

Article 14: Protection of Collective Rights

1. The Republic recognizes the rights of cultural, religious, and regional communities to preserve their traditions, provided they do not contradict the goals of socialist construction or maintain oppressive social structures.

2. National and ethnic minorities are represented in the PAR and consulted on decisions directly affecting them.

Article 15: Economic Rights

1. Private ownership of the means of production is abolished, and citizens collectively enjoy the fruits of their labor through socialist ownership and economic planning.

2. The state guarantees a minimum income, periodically adjusted, sufficient to cover essential needs and individual development.

3. Every citizen has the right to free access to cultural, scientific, and artistic resources, considered a collective heritage. Access is ensured through six weeks of paid leave annually, an eight-hour workday, and two weekly rest days.

Article 16: Secularism and Religion

1. The Republic is secular and guarantees freedom of conscience.

2. Any form of religious propaganda or practice aimed at undermining the foundations of socialism or alienating rights and freedoms to a group or individual is prohibited.

3. Education and public services are religiously neutral. The state promotes the dissemination of materialist and scientific ideas in opposition to religious obscurantism.

4. The state fosters harmony among religions and respect for spiritual differences.

Article 17: Workers' Rights

1. Workers have the right to organize and lead local soviets, the foundational organs of proletarian democracy.

2. Union rights are guaranteed. Unions have a duty to actively participate in workers' emancipation and socialist construction.

3. The workday is limited to eight hours, with progressive reduction based on productivity gains and technological advances.

4. Salaries, dignified working conditions, and daily enterprise management are collaboratively organized by soviets and unions.

Article 18: Defense of the Republic

1. Defending the Republic is a sacred duty for every citizen.

2. Universal and mandatory civic service, focused on technical, military, and political training, ensures the people's capacity to defend the revolution. Every adult citizen must complete this service before their 25th birthday.

Article 19: Environmental Protection

1. The Socialist Federal Republic recognizes the necessity of harmonious development between humanity and nature.

2. Economic planning incorporates objectives for preserving ecosystems and addressing environmental destruction inherited from capitalism.

Title VI: Commitments of the Republic

Article 20: Unity and International Solidarity

1. The Socialist Federal Republic acts in solidarity with all peoples fighting imperialism, colonialism, and capitalism.

2. It is committed to actively supporting revolutionary movements worldwide, respecting the right of peoples to self-determination.

Article 21: Social Justice

1. The Republic works to eliminate all forms of social and economic inequality through a fair and equitable redistribution of resources.

2. Any concentration of power or wealth contrary to the general interest is deemed an attack on socialism and sanctioned by law.

Article 22: Scientific and Cultural Orientation

1. The Republic promotes a scientific, artistic, and educational culture accessible to all, aimed at raising the socialist consciousness of the masses.

2. Materialist and critical education is a fundamental duty of the state and its institutions. Education aims to eradicate prejudice, obscurantism, superstition, and reactionary ideologies.

(Note that i'm not 100% fluent in english so I used chatGPT to help me translate parts of the original text. If you find any grammar mistakes or sentences that could have been formulated better, please let me know.)

So, my job (where I’m definitely overworked and underpaid) just launched a monthly "book" club. The idea is to read a book or listen to a podcast and discuss it together. February is my turn to pick, and I'm struggling to find the right thing.

Here's the thing: My employers are all Trump supporters, and while I’d love to pick something that subtly critiques how poorly employees are treated under capitalism, I don't want it to come across as overtly anti-capitalist and get dismissed out of hand. I want something that sparks conversation and (hopefully) gets them to reflect on how they manage the workplace—but without immediately setting off any red flags.

Anything that feels insightful, not preachy, and ideally not too long (because let’s be real, I’m also juggling a million other tasks).

Anyone have recommendations?