Welcome again to everybody! Make yourself at home. Read Lenin. In the time-honoured tradition of our group, here is our weekly discussion thread!
We have a Matrix homeserver at genzedong.xyz. See this thread for information about our Matrix space.
Short reading list for new MLs here. To find theory, try https://marxists.org, z-lib, libgen, or Sci-Hub (for scientific articles). If an article is unavailable, try the Wayback Machine.
did a bit of praxis today and wrote a lot of stuff for socialism and writing pro-socialist sounding statements (and some anti-capitalist sounding statements) on my sociology exam today (when one of the questions asked me to describe about the 5 stages of society described by marx).
i’ll probably get shit marks for it, accused of memorizing from chatgpt (when i don’t even have a fucking chatgpt account + i hate memorizing) and i’ll probably even be called out by my sociology teach to “explain wtf i wrote” but lmfao i regret not. a. single. thing. 💅💅💅
especially when she said absolute nonsense such as “marx was ultimately incorrect” and that “there’ll always be some people better than others and therefore it’d be unfair to give them the same thing as someone who puts the less amount of work does” (this part i’m 100% sure is bullshit nonsense about socialism but i’m too uneducated on this to make a refutation; but i just know this doesn’t make any fucking sense).
refutation example:
How would one measure “amount of work” other than in time? If it’s measured in output, that’s not the amount (quantity) of work, it’s the quality of work, and this is affected by many factors outside of the worker’s control (educational opportunities, economic situation, interests, genetics, etc.), so it would hardly be less unfair to pay one person more than the other for the same quantity of work because of that. If someone is unable to perform labour for any reason, that is also largely outside of their control and it would not be less unfair to let them starve to death. There’s also no principle preventing workers with dangerous or highly stressful jobs from being given additional collectively agreed-upon benefits
at this point she might pull out the old “people would just be lazy if they’re all paid the same per hour of work”, in which case you can ask her if she chose teaching over other occupations strictly because it pays well (which it usually doesn’t, at least in the West)
The bourgeoisie and the capitalists by extension always had the same “talking points” and “arguments” through the economic history of the world. The quantity and quality of work was always “put to question” when a change was imminent. When the slaves revolted in the third servile war in Rome there was talk about how the barbarian slaves were lazy, when the serfdom and feudal slavery in Europe was being abolished, the bourgeoisie always agreed how a human free from their idea of work and happiness is a “threat to society”. So knowing history is always enough to beat that kind of “facts” that come from the elites.