I bought a National Instrument’s data acquisition card (PCIe-6535B) not knowing that National Instruments is not very Linux-friendly and I was not able to get it working. At least it was a used card so I did not pay to much for it, but I learned my lesson not to assume compatibility.

Once I also used ‘rm -rvf *’ from my home directory while SSH’d into a supercomputer (I made a syntax error when trying to cd into the folder that I actually wanted to delete). I was able to get my data restored from a backup, but sending that e-mail was a bit embarrassing 😆

Here, I’m assuming “it” is a conscious perception. But now I’m confused again because I don’t think any theory of mind would deny this.

Yes, the example of such a theory that is common is epiphenomalism. What I am contrasting in my answers is the epiphenomalist/hard-determinist framework with the physicalist/compatibilist one.

stimuli -> CPM ⊆ brain -> consciousness update CPM -?> black box -?> mind -?> brain -> nervous system -> response to stimuli

I can try to explain with such a diagram:

stimuli -> nerves -> brain input ports -> brain filtering and distribution -> Conscious brain processing via causal predictive modelling -> brain output ports -> nerves -> conscious action
                                                                                          |
                                                                                          -- > Unconscious processing -> brain output ports -> nerves -> unconscious action

So, the CPM is a process within the brain. The idea is that the brain is a computer that makes predictions by building cause-and-effect models. What is interesting about the mathematics of causal models is that the underlying engine is the counterfactual. The claim being made here is that mind itself is this counterfactual engine doing its work. The computational space that deals with the counterfactuals or “fantasies” is the essence of the mind.

This is not in any way a solution to the hard problem of consciousness. Rather, it is one of many frameworks compatible with physicalism, and it is the one I personally subscribe to. In this framework, it is a postulate that conscious experience corresponds to the brain’s counterfactual simulations within a generative model used for predicting and guiding action. This postulate does not prove or mechanistically explain consciousness. No physical theory currently does.

I’m going to stick with the meat of your point. To summarize, …

That is not quite how I see it. The linear diagram “brain -> black box -> mind” represents a common mode of thinking about the mind as a by-product of complex brain activity. Modern theories are a lot more integrative. Conscious perception is not just a byproduct of the form brain -> black box -> mind, but instead it is an essential active element in the thought process.

Ascribing predictions, fantasies, and hypotheses to the brain or calling it a statistical organ sidesteps the hard problem and collapses it into a physicalist view. They don’t posit a mind-body relationship, they speak about body and never acknowledge the mind. I find this frustrating.

That text was probably written by a materialist / physicalist, and this view is consistent within this framework. It is OK that you find this frustrating, and it is also alright if you don’t accept the materialist / physicalist viewpoint. I am not making an argument about materialism being the ultimate truth, or about materialism having all of the answers - especially not answers relating to the hard problem! I am specifically describing how different frameworks held by people who already hold a materialist view can lead to different ways of understanding free will.

Scientists often do sidestep the hard problem in the sense that they acknowledge it to be “hard” and keep moving without dwelling on it. There are many philosophers (David Chalmers, Daniel Dennett, Stuart R. Hameroff), that do like getting into the nitty-gritty about the hard problem, so there is plenty of material about it, but the general consensus is that the answers to the hard problem cannot be find using the materialist’s toolkit.

Materialists have is a mechanism for building consensus via the scientific method. This consensus mechanism has allowed us to understand a lot about the world. I share your frustration in that this class of methods does not seem to be capable of solving the hard problem.

We may never discover a mechanism to build consensus on the hard problem, and unfortunately this means that answers to many very important questions will remain subjective. As an example, if we eventually implement active inference into a computer, and the computer claims to be conscious, we may have no consensus mechanism to determine whether they “really” are conscious or not, just as we cannot ascertain today whether the people around us are conscious. In my opinion, yes, it is physically possible to build conscious systems, and at some point it will get tricky because it will remain a matter of opinion. It will be an extremely polarizing topic.

In my view, neuroscience may contribute to clarifying questions like:

• Do all brains support a conscious predictive model (CPM)?

• Does adaptive behavior in brainless organisms suggest a primitive CPM?

• What is the relationship between brain and mind?

But deeper questions, such as “What do we mean by mind?” or “Why assume weak emergence?” remain tied to the hard problem of consciousness, which currently lies beyond the reach of empirical science.

In trying to describe promising cognitive models, I buried my main point. I am not arguing that the brain and mind problem is close to a solution, or that science is close to resolving it.

Here is my actual point:

Certain materialist views unintentionally reproduce dualist thinking. Substance dualism claims that the mind exists outside physical law. Materialism, in contrast, holds that the mind emerges from brain activity. But when this emergence is explained only as complexity or undefined processing, a conceptual gap forms: brain -> black box -> mind. This reproduces dualism in practice, even if not in theory.

This gap renders consciousness a passive byproduct. It becomes a new kind of soul, unable to influence the body. A mind without agency.

Predictive processing and active inference models offer an alternative. They describe the brain as a generative system that continuously updates predictions based on sensory input. As summarized in a recent review:

Active inference casts the brain as a fantastic organ: a generator of fantasies, hypotheses and predictions that are tested against sensory evidence.

While these models do not resolve the hard problem, they help remove part of the black box. They suggest that consciousness may play a functional role in these feedback loops. It is not a detached illusion but a process embedded in how the brain operates.

For me, this shift changed how I think about free will. Not because it provides final answers, but because it allows me to see mental acts in a similar way to how I see muscle movement. These acts are constrained by physical laws, but they are still mine.

The thing that confuses me about Real Utopias is whether the author rejects revolution entirely, or wants cooperatives within a post-revolutionary Socialist system. The former has no real chance to actually damage Capitalism, while the latter is already used in countries like China as they gradually build into higher and higher stages of Socialism. Socialists already advocate for building up Dual Power, the Soviets for example were already in place before the October Revolution, but also understand that as this Dual Power grows the resistance from Capitalists grows as well, Revolution still becomes a necessity.

What I am getting so far is that he considers the revolutionary strategy to have a low probability of succeeding, and he argues that this is supported by historical evidence. The cooperatives are just one part of the strategy that he describes early on, once I am done with the book if I do think it is interesting enough I can try to summarize his thought.

In the textbook and in one of his online lectures he appears to start off aligned with Marx but diverges from Marxist theory. On Chapter 4 ("Thinking about alternatives to Capitalism, page 69) he describes his understanding of Marxist theory and in what ways he thinks differently. So, I suspect you will probably disagree with him strongly! Maybe I will too.

At this point I am not saying I have formed a strong opinion. The reason why Erik Olin Wright’s work brings me value is because his framework is aligned with my unpolished starting opinion of anti-capitalism through structural changes. His work helps me formalize my internal logic as I navigate through uncharted (for me) ideas about revolution as a mechanism for transformation.

I want to add that the purpose of my list is to equip the reader with solid foundational knowledge of Marxism-Leninism, so that the reader may better make up their own conclusions and further explore theory and historical texts (though I do include a section on history later).

Doing a good job 😀

I also think that, eventually, you’ll want to read Anti-Dühring. Engels counters the cooperative model from a Marxist perspective. It’s the much larger book the essay Socialism: Utopian and Scientific comes from, so if you’re down for a challenge you can read Anti-Dühring instead of Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.

Anti-Dühring’s table of contents looks very interesting, so I will get to it eventually, but it is a lot of material. These are some very resource-intensive opinions to build!

Ultimately, it boils down to 2 possibilities, neither of which are good for the cooperative model:

I follow this logic but I am at this time not ready to accept or reject the notion that these possibilities describe the range of possible outcomes from such a strategy. In the Real Utopias project the cooperative model is not seen as the end-point but rather as one mechanism to erode capitalism. The author did not think that the ruptural transformation pathway would have a good chance in creating a society with the properties he deems ‘desirable’. There are so many unconstrained variables and unknowns that the output of a fast and chaotic transformation process is undefined in many ways, and so there is no reason to expect that the properties of the society that emerges will fall exclusively within a narrow range of desirable ones. Slow but intentional structural change has (he argues) a better chance of incorporating desirable properties while rejecting undesirable ones.

You’ll have plenty of time to develop your own opinions, cooperatives are certainly better than traditional firms, but you’ll find Marxists typically don’t agree with “utopia building” and other cooperative forms of ownership, and you’ll best see why generally in section 2.

I’ll have plenty of time but also will need plenty of time, socialists like to write big books it seems.

Blackshirts and Reds was a good entry point for me since I don’t have much historical background. It helped clarify terms like “fascism” that I’d seen used a lot but never truly understood. It also laid out some contrasts between fascist and communist dictatorships, which I found helpful early on.

One thing that really caught my attention was the bit on Kerala and the so-called “Kerala model.” That led me to Prabhat Patnaik’s article “The International Context and the Kerala Model” (available on scihub), which explained how IMF-backed liberalization can destabilize local economies by -for example - replacing self-sufficient agriculture with luxury imports.This was quite insighttful.

That said, the book does blur things together to build its narrative, and it doesn’t source every claim. I feel like this sometimes leads to misleading simplifications. For example, it says:

In Latvia, the communist activist Alfreds Rubies, who protested the inequities of free-market “reform,” has been kept in prison for years without benefit of trial

Reading that, you’d think Rubics was just an activist jailed for protesting neoliberalism. But when I looked him up, he was a politician that tried to crush opposition and backed a failed coup. That context matters, and the omission feels like nuance is missing. I found a few other cases like that - claims that technically check out but lack important context. Still, I learned a lot, and it made me want more source-heavy stuff. Something more like a history textbook that compares narratives directly and points at more direct sources (like UN resolutions, court documents, this type of things I like going through).

Another thing that I can add is that I am reading other things in addition to your recommendations. One memorable book that I am enjoying is ‘Envisioning Real Utopias’ by Erik Olin Wright. From what I have found online there is a mixed reaction to Olin’s ideas from socialists/communists. My understanding of his claims so far is that there are mechanisms of social transformation that may be accessed by exploiting vulnerabilities during the social reproduction process. I still need to read through a lot of the book but so far he has suggested that worker cooperatives (like Mondragon Corporation) and the creation of ‘cooperative banks’ (willing to lend money for transforming companies into worker-owned) create one of the viable mechanisms through which the capitalist system may be eroded. I have found some of the criticism of trying to solve capitalism with more capitalism, which is an easy criticism to make, but I do think Olin makes some good points. As of this evening I would say Olin’s description of the problem of social transformation, how he categorizes strategies in terms of desirability, viability, and achievability, and his data-driven approach to assessing policy strategies (such as looking at what has actually happened in universal basic income experiments), is what I am most in alignment with. But still lots to learn.

Already finished Parenti’s Blackshirts and Reds a few days ago and and watched Parenti’s speech. I am still going through the list, little by little. Great stuff, thanks !

I think that its emergence is weak but I see no resolution to the hard problem of consciousness any time soon, so for the time my opinions about it are ideas that I find compelling and intuitive and not grounded in facts and evidence. Weak emergence does posit some form of pansychism in the sense that sentient-like behavior can emerge in other brains and even that characteristics that we might associate with sentience might emerge from other phenomena present through the universe. But, because of the same reasons that the hard problem is hard, it is also hard to study and learn about these phenomena.

I can try to explain a little better what I meant.

I don’t believe we have “free will” in the sense that the mind is separate from the body (dualism) and that it is able to break the laws of physics by altering our physiological processes. I don’t think that the non-determinism of quantum mechanics in itself gives us agency, and our mind does not have a mechanism to select how a particular wavev function collapses (not a fan of the Orch OR model).

So, in this traditional sense my answer is “no, we do not have free will”

But I think that the existential crisis and feeling of a lack of agency stems from the model of sentience that one believes. If one rejects dualism, posits that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but then ascribes only very loosely a mechanism to consciousness such as ‘complex information processing gives rise to consciousness’, then sentience appears to be just some unexplained quirk that is not essential and just happens to be there. Combining a lack of dualism and free will with consciousness being a useless quirk is what (I think) creates the existential crisis associated with a lack of free will. I used to fall into this camp of thought and resolved the crisis through a logic such as: “Yeah, there is no free will, living is nice though so I am happy that I can accidentally experience the world”.

What pushed me to re-assess this way of thinking originally was reading through a paper about teaching a dish of neurons how to play pong](https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(22)00806-6). At first it did not make sense to me how one can possibly provide feedback to a group of isolated neurons such that it could learn to play a game. What ‘reward’ can you give a group of neurons to push them to do what you want?!

I looked into Karl Friston, the last author of that paper, which led me down a path of study. I discovered Judea Pearl, who formalized causal reasoning in a way that lets us build statistical models to move from correlations to counterfactual causes. This makes it possible to teach causal inference even to machines.

Karl Friston’s work and other researchers in the field argue that the brain is a computer built for causal computing. This idea underpins the Bayesian brain, Predictive Coding Theory, Active Inference.

In Karl Friston’s Active Inference book, sentience is proposed to emerge as a result of the prediction engine. What we experience is not actually what our senses already experienced, but instead it is what our brain expects that we will sense in the next instant. This model of reality that is built by our brain in its attempt to perform its basic function (link causes to effects in order to predict the next stimulus).

One idea is that consciousness emerges because the predictive brain is creating a ‘model’ that does not exist in physical space and so it needs imagination to explore it. The imagination of things that do not exist is essential to the process of generating counterfactuals, and counterfactuals are at the core of the causality machine. To show that A causes B, you need to imagine a situation in which A is not present and estimate the likelyhood of B. One idea is that it is precisely in the creation of a world without A that sentience emerges.

A lot of these ideas are not falsifiable, so it is difficult to say that this is indeed the mechanism of consciousness. But some of the ideas are falsifiable, and those ideas have helped these researchers teach neurons how to play pong, so I think they might have a point.

So, then, I find it plausible that consciousness is not a quirk but an essential feature of our brain. To me this resolves the free will crisis because my consciousness is not an accidental outcome of physical processes just chaotically whizzing by but an actual feature of the machinery that is me.

So these outputs are experienced. And that experience of making predictions is me. Am I the one experiencing the predictions as well?

So this sentence confuses me: “This prediction machine is me making predictions and choices.” Am I making the predictions or is it the CPM?

I am this machine and I follow the laws of physics. I am part of physical reality, and my sentience is a feature of who I am. If I do something it is because I chose to do so, and the fact that I chose to do so in accordance to the law of physics does not remove my agency.

Thoughts and muscle movements come about through the opening and closing of ion channels that allow information to travel through neurons and for muscle fibers to contract and relax. ‘Free will’ in the sense that our mind is separate from our body and that it can somehow open those ion channels is a combination of dualism and molecular telekinesis, so I do not believe that, no.

But I do believe that consciousness is an essential emergent property of our brain. What we experience might be the output of a causal prediction engine in our brain that is making a prediction about the immediate sensory experience in a way that we can respond to stimuli before they happen. In that sense, yes, I do believe in free will because that conscious output that I experience is me! This prediction machine is me making predictions and choices.

I think that a materialist framing of free will requires accepting some model of consciousness in which consciousness is not just a weird accident but is a physical phenomenon that is part of us. An essential feature of how our brain works. This is not yet demonstrated (very difficult if not impossible to do so), but I think it is. Then ‘free will’ and ‘a material system following the laws of physics’ is no longer a contradiction.

Xni’pek

In the Netherlands I use adjuma pepper instead of habanero and mix sweet orange juice + lime as the sour orange replacement.

but I will selfishly re-assert the importance of Dialectical Materialism

Ok, I will make sure I cover it then, I started this morning. Materialism is familiar to me and dialectics in the context of debate are also familiar, but ‘dialectical materialism’ is new. It has been about a decade since I put some dedicated effort in studying philosophy, and back then I mostly did morality, theology/metaphysics, epistemology, and philosophy of science. Economics and politics were not super interesting to me back then, but now they are, so it is a good time to revisit.

From a surface reading it makes sense that the resolution of conflicts that arise due to material conditions is one pathway to change. I am curious to understand how a framework is built from this concept and whether Marxist theory rigidly asserts this as the driver for change or if it is one important tool for building a perspective on class struggles but the framework accepts flexibility and complexity.

As for National Liberation, Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth is the best Marxist explanation of it. National liberation against colonialism and Imperialism is seen as progressive, and the product of oppression, not the oppressors. Palestine, for example, is supported wholeheartedly against the Settler-Colonialism of Israel, including resisting genocide using force to do so. Oppression creates its own violent reaction, even if in a perfect world neither would exist.

I will leave ‘National liberation’ study for later as there is already enough on the plate. In the context of Palestine, the Palestinians need to do what they can do to survive. They have grown under an active genocidal campaign, they are direct recipients of unimaginable violence. I think it’s straightforward to frame this as a case of self-preservation. What is the alternative argument? That they should erase themselves?

What is arguably dangerous (I am not saying this happens in Marxist philosophy) is when an ideology recognizes, as an example, the ‘Imperial Core’ as the ultimately responsible entity of oppression and places everyone who benefits in some way, perhaps simply by being born in Europe or US, as part of the enemy. Someone can justify bombing civilians in a Western country using a robust and coherent ideological framework that is further justified by the violent injustices that they have experienced. When I think of an ideological framework that discusses violence, I’m interested in what mechanisms are in place to keep violence in check.

Make sense?

Yes, it does, very much so. Thanks a lot!

It is good to hear. For what it’s worth, I just went through a bit of an exercise for Cuba trying to look for examples of the types of violence that they committed and also looked into some of the other groups that I associate with the concept of a “violent revolution” (ETA in Spain, IRA in Ireland, different groups in Yugoslavia). What I found is:

• The groups that I associate with terrorism tactics are nationalistic, not fighting for socialism (at least not as a main goal).

• The Cuban revolutionaries used guerrilla tactics that, from what I can find, did not use terrorism as a tool. Their enemies, including CIA-backed groups, did.

So, that’s points in favor to Cuba.

When people say “kill the landlords” online, they are usually expressing frustration at the parasitic nature of landlordism, they are not announcing that they intend to kill grandma.

Good to know! Before the 2016 US election I would rarely choose the literal interpretation when reading statements like this online. When Trump was elected and I realized that people online were not actually being sarcastic and making jokes, I began to take online statements more seriously and literally. I still think there is a high probability that some people who write about violence online mean it literally. That doesn’t necessarily reflect on Marxist-Leninists though, many ideologies/religions can be pushed to extremism, and it is not entirely fair to ask everyone not to use figurative language online.

I am half way through Wage Labor and Capital now. It is very interesting, I think that I will like Marx’s Das Kaptial because I do like dense/analytical. I already have several questions but I will first read more and then see if I can get some help in the communities you mentioned.

Thanks! I had the chance to read a bit.

So far… Engels Principles of Communism says some sensible things to do if the government is trusted (for example, the concept of abolishing private property, inheritance taxes, etc…), but it is also makes some point that I find concerning. Specifically, the combination of the answers provided to “Q16: Will it be possible to bring about the abolition of private property by peaceful means?” and “Q24: How do communists differ from socialists?” concern me because Q16 suggests violence as a method and Q24 significantly broadens the scope of who is an enemy of the revolution, while still keeping it ambiguous. A call for violent revolution + ambiguity of who is the enemy is a dangerous recipe because it leaves a lot of room for “interpretation” and “nuance” that will probably lead to disagreement between violent factions.

I think of this mixture of call for violence + an ambiguous enemy in the context of what I see sometimes being posted to social media, including Lemmy. I have seen calls for violence against “owners” that often extends to small business owners and landlords, usually without distinguishing between a commercial entity as a ‘landlord’ and a grandma renting out a room. Sometimes I think this is just a figure of speech but sometimes I doubt and consider that these might be actual calls to action. So, then, when I see such a broad brush being used to paint the ‘enemy’ I get the impression that pretty much anyone benefiting in some way from these systems is an enemy if they do not immediately understand and fully embrace the revolution. A revolution, then, seems to ask the revolutionary to be violent against friends and families if living in a developed country. I find it difficult to imagine that a majority within a population would want to go through this process if they fully understand the implication. When a Engles writes about “the majority of the people”, does this count every individual in the population, or only those who are friendly to the revolution?

As I continue I am curios of whether I will find find some robust method to distinguish between the ‘proletariat’ and the ‘petty-bourgeois’, and to find out whether I will keep my head during the revolution. It would be nice to find some ideas on how to achieve the goals without violence. I have also seen that many more modern philosophies are built on top of Marxism-Leninism (like Degrowth), so in any case I am certain I will get a lot of value out of this topic.

I also found that you are running a book club on Das Kapital, I will try to catch up.

Do you know of a community where I can ask questions about this topic?

Again, thank you very much for taking the time to respond in such depth. As I read what you write I think of more questions, but I think it is unfair that I continue asking when you have given me already a lot of explanation and study material. My questions will most likely be addressed in the material.

On my way home now I was thinking about what would be a good way to approach this study. At first I thought of picking Venezuela because it is a bit close but not too close to me. But from what you mention it seems like it might be a difficult one to start with. I have decided I will focus on Cuba first (well, once I am done with the pre-req theoretical background). I even made a small plan to follow, I’ll try to visit Havana within the next few years.

Again, thank you!

Cuba in particular is under intense embargo, as I’m sure you know.

Yes, for Cuba’s situation I put most of the blame for the US. I see a lot of anti-Cuba propaganda that is ridiculous. Virtually most UN members have agreed for a long time that the US should drop the cruel embargo, I don’t see it as a controversial take that the US is the aggressor here and is to blame in many many other cases. Don’t get me wrong on that, I won’t deny the imperialist reality.

As far as the concept of a ‘socialist revolution’ goes, this stage makes sense to me! It is in understanding the actions that leaders take after the revolution is where I become skeptical. It is difficult for me to distinguish between a genuine attempt at socialism and someone using the compelling ideas of socialism as a tool to justify actions that concentrate power to their benefit. An enemy is a useful tool to consolidate power. Imperial systems built on capitalist system can provide this enemy, the question is whether the concept of this enemy is being used as a useful tool or if a serious attempt is being made to defeat it. Is there a winning stage were the leader would say “Fantastic, we did it guys! I will step away now”, or is there no end-point planned?

My father’s side of the family is originally from Yugoslavia/Slovenia, and they do speak well about Slovenia under Tito. And, when I look into Tito, it does look like his government is regarded in an overwhelmingly positive light. Their system at least on the surface looks to me like an example of a socialist(?) system that can co-exist with a largely capitalist world. My knowledge on the actual details/history of this comes from a few very focused YouTube videos and wiki pages so maybe he is not considered a good example of a socialist leader by socialists. I do see a contrast here in that this is a leader that is painted generally in a positive light, but I am not sure if this is because he was friendly to the west, or my experience is biased because I mostly hear about him from Slovenians and YouTube. The specific example of Slovenia gives me some hope that a kind of intermediate system that co-exists with capitalism can be used to peacefully transition, and from what I understand they did achieve a system that distributed ownership and the power to make decisions among workers more than to the state. Although things did not end so well for Yugoslavia, so maybe a system like this one would be quenched.

Great, lots to study! I will make an effort, really. Thank you!

To add some context… I am originally from the south of Mexico. The view of ‘Imperialism of the Global North’ is a common understanding there. The evidence of this is quite explicit. There is also a lot of classism that is routinely used to harmonize religious ideology with the unjust reality of inequality. Perhaps a reason why the theory of socialism resonates with me is because it successfully explains the dynamics that give rise to the systems that support the inequality that I grew up around.

After going through some of the background theory this is where I will want to focus my attention:

Socialist Revolution occurs first in the Global South. That’s why a lot of rapid industrialization and millitarization to protect from outside threats has solidified in every surviving Socialist state.

My distrust of the government in Mexico and South America is very high - regardless of political ideology. It may be simplistic but in this moment I think that a lot of the powerful people ruling these countries are primarily driven by self-interest, are corrupt, often use populist rhetoric including vague anti-imperialist and anti-corruption messages, and do not have a concrete specific plan. I know that human liberties in Venezuela and Cuba are severely restricted in face of awful material conditions because I have met several people who escaped and who have been there. I have not visited either myself, but family and friends have. So this would be a good topic for me to study. I promise you that despite coming in with my preconceived notions I approach this with an open but still always skeptical mind.

To pick a specific example that I am curious about… Is Venezuela’s government today seen in a positive light by socialists in general? If so, do you know of any good reading I could do to understand why this is the case? Why would I trust that Nicolás Maduro wants what is best for the Venezuelan people? Was he democratically elected? If not, does it matter?

Thanks a lot for taking the time to write out such a thorough reply! I have ordered a copy of Blackshirts and Reds (I really prefer reading printed books) and have begun checking out the links.

Capitalism is a very natural point to reach, but also has its own quantitative shifts that lead to Socialism overtaking it.

My not-very-developed perspective is: When I think of capitalism as a ‘metastable’, I think that this meta-stability is achieved by allocating some resources to keep the masses just comfortable enough to remain somewhat pacific and complacent. It is not essential to achieve this globally, but it is somewhat important locally. So those who have accumulated more can simply apply the more violent and extractive practices abroad while things locally are OK.

The thing is… The pathway to leaving a meta-stable state involves first hopping out of that stability. In practical terms this means shaking things up and pissing off those who are interested in maintaining the status quo and who have the means to cause a significant amount of pain. If successful, for example, by means of a violent revolution, there is no guarantee of landing in a better spot. Furthermore, a violent revolution can potentially distribute power unevenly to those willing to exercise violence.

I don’t think it is so much “Capitalism is great!” as much as “We are currently stuck in this system, it doesn’t work but at least I am one of the lucky ones, and so far there doesn’t seem to be a good plan to get out of this mess”. This is being complacent, and it is not ideal. But it is difficult to figure out how to not be complacent in a meaningful way without self-sabotage. I can see how to take specific actions to try to make the world around me a little better, but these are things that don’t shake up the system.

That can be why you find yourself seeing controversial claims, a large part of defending Socialism is defending it from the unjustifed attacks those opposed usually jump to, rather than the more useful critique of Socialism as it truly exists. You’ll find that the best critique of Socialism in the real world comes from Socialists, and we Marxists are not afraid of genuine critique. Rather, Marx himself advocated for the “ruthless critique of all that exists.”

That makes sense. The type of criticism that I commonly see is that many of the historical examples of “socialism” are characterized by a leader imposing their will on a population, suppressing the media, and a leader and family living with luxury despite the population suffering. I don’t know how much of it is accurate and how much is propaganda. But I know reality is nuanced and there is probably a mix of truth and fiction in there. When I see a strong bias in either direction I am suspicious.

Regardless of what is true and what isn’t: when someone glorifies a leader, it is not clear to me if the person believes a different historical narrative than the common/western one (for example, the counter-narrative might be: ‘That was a complete fabrication! People were free to leave and there is no evidence of suppression of the press’), or if they accept the common historical narrative but believe the actions are justified (something more along the lines of: ‘yes, X did force the population to stay within the borders to protect the state and killed those lying propagandist journalists, all of this was justified.’). This is what I wish I knew more about. My knowledge of these people is superficial. I don’t know neither the commonly accepted narratives nor the alternate narratives (if they exist), I just see that people have very different opinions about Castro, Maduro, Stalin, Mao, Xi Jin Ping, Putin, and even Kim Jong Un.

You have already helped me a lot and given me many things to look at. If I make the effort to go through some of the material you already provided I will probably find many of the answers. Thanks!

I have read some books that maybe cover some of these topics tangentially, but I have not studied the source material. I do want to, so thank you providing a list of resources to check out!

When I go through Lemmy and see discussions on theory, my views tend to align quite strongly with those of socialism. I do see there are a lot of controversial takes when it comes to historical figures, but if I am being honest those discussions are well outside my depth. I wish I knew more about history so that I could get more value out of that. So, if you know of any interesting history books, I am interested.

And thanks for the feedback! I figured that aligning an instance with my own personal interests would make more sense as I can make more valuable contributions and I find the content interesting.