star_wraith

This topic comes up somewhat regularly here. If you have kids, what can you do to at least give them the best shot at understanding and embracing your communist / Marxist / dialectical materialist views? We usually come up with a couple big picture ideas, but over the last few weeks I've been jotting down very specific, concrete actions you can take. This list is not meant to exhaustive - I'm hoping you all have great ideas to share, too. But this is what I've come up with so far:

(And to clarify something, I'm 100% convinced to do need to be somewhat intentional and didactic about your values and views if you want your kids to share them. To think "I'm just going to let them find their own way, I don't want to influence them" is 1,000% lib shit. I'm not even sure most liberals think that way.)

Be a good parent: This one seems obvious, but it's so important it bears repeating and should be at the top of the list. You should be a good, involved parent for a number of reasons anyway. But, if you want your kids to share your views, being a good parent is the #1 way to encourage that. Or at least, being a shitty parent is a surefire way to make sure your kids rebel against everything you care about

Get organized: Get involved in an org, even if it's something like DSA. It can be an actual org like PSL or even just helping feed homeless folks in your town. Your kids can see how you have a great grasp of reality thanks to materialism, which might make them inclined to think you know what you're talking about. But if they know you see the problems in the world, but aren't doing anything to change that world... I can see how some kids might see that as kinda hyprocritical.

Learn history, especially from a materialist perspective: This is easy for me because I love history, even long before I was a Marxist. But if you don't enjoy history, I think you should at least push yourself and try to understand at least the materialist history behind what your kids will learn in school (so for American kids, making sure you understanding things like how the constitution was formed, how African-Americans have been held down throughout history, etc.). Especially if you are American, this is easy because most Americans are dumb as shit when it comes to history, and K-12 history teachers aren't much better. If your kids see that you know what you're talking about, they will largely trust your analysis. So when your kid hears in class that "the US fought the Korean War because the Soviets wanted to take over", they will know to come to you and ask if that's true - because they know you likely have a much more thorough and accurate answer.

For little kids, read history books to them: Right now my kid loves Nelson Mandela, because we have a couple books about him. I happen to believe that fostering a love of history can definitely help point kids in the right direction (even if by itself it probably won't turn them commie). Just make sure it's "good" history and not just that crap that glazes the founding fathers.

For older kids, engage with them on what they're learning in school: Good idea for all subjects, but especially for the social sciences. Ask questions. Be genuinely interested. While like said above, you need to be didactic but older kids especially aren't going to want to hear you rant about how Stalin saved the world from fascism for 15 minutes every time he comes up. Know when to just ask and listen with them.

Stay on top of current affairs: Keep up with the News Mega! All the stuff I said above about history applies to news & current events.

Play some commie podcasts when you're in the car with them: I feel like I might get push back on this, so let me explain. When I was a kid, my parents had news radio on whenever we were in the car. And even if I didn't understand what was always being talked about, I know for a fact I absorbed a ton of information passively that way. I believe that is a big reason I'm as interested in what's going on in the wider world today. I know we're generally down on leftist podcast but the reality is there's a ton of good content out there.

Try to have answers ready for when kids ask about what you believe: I think especially for younger kids, it's good to have simple answers ready that they can understand. And don't worry about being precisely correct in your response. When your kid asks “are we republicans or democrats?” or “do you vote for republicans or democrats, keeping in mind they may have a hard time understanding a complicated response. Say something like “I vote for whoever helps poor people or immigrants or people who work for a living”. That's much better than trying to explain the drawbacks of electoralism to a 7 year old. Obviously you can be more detailed and precise with older kids.

Try and have leftist adult friends who also have kids: Believe me, I get how hard this. It's nearly impossible to find any broadly leftist parents in my area, much less those who have time for socializing. So this is more of an ideal to try and reach, not a concrete action. But I think having some friends around who share your views - and have kids who can befriend your kids - is very effective. Just hard to pull off.

Push back hard against any transphobia or homophobia: Whether you see it IRL or in media, don't hesitate to be clear with your kids what being LGBTQ is about and that anyone who against LGBTQ rights sucks. I say this because I was raised in an environment very hostile to LGBTQ people. Just the other day, my kid wanted her two Barbie dolls to get married. For a fraction of second, there was that old voice in the back of my head saying "they're too young to understand". But of course they're not, and I explained how of course two Barbies can get married. Kids DO need to understand the validity of LGBTQ identities at a very young age.

If you're white, teaching anti-racism is important: Because if you're white, it's incredibly easy to fall into the trap of "well I'm not racist and no other white people I know are racist, so racism must be over". It's easy because white society pushes this notion so hard. You absolute have to teach kids about systematic racism and how they actually do need to stand up to racist pricks, because they will encounter them.

That's the list I have so far, would love to hear your additions.

Well over $100k in the higher cost of living states, too. And as the article states, that’s typically about double what the median salary is for a single person in most states.

I’d like to point out that AES states - while maybe they didn’t have all the same quality or quantity of consumer goods - were able to able to to provide a comfortable life for everyone without all the predatory that US workers currently have. And don’t take my word for it, take it from the neoliberal queen herself, Angela Merkel. When asked about life in the former GDR, she described it as “almost comfortable”. Now before you mention that “almost” is an important qualifier, note that the context of her quote was her trying to criticize the former GDR but she grudgingly conceded the comment above.

I’m white. My daughter is also white. She’s 3 years old, almost 4.

Up to this age, my approach to teaching her about race has been to focus exclusively on skin color. Meaning, we talk about how people can have all different colors and tones to their skin. Talking about skin color on a spectrum. But always emphasizing that people are all the same and that everyone should be treated the same.

In isolation, this all sounds lib. I of course want to get all into structural and institutional racism et al. But… she’s 3. Up until a few months ago she was still pooping and pissing in a diaper. My thinking is that emphasizing this more lib understanding of race is more age-appropriate now, and we can get into the real stuff a little later on when she has the mental and emotional maturity to handle it (that said, I have told her that the cops aren’t very nice to people who don’t look like us. Whatever, the daycare has pigs come over and talk to the kids even at her age, so fuck em I’m gonna counter that shit now).

Is this the right approach? Is there more I should be doing? If you all have any age-appropriate books on this topic you can recommend, definitely let me know.

(Specifying “post-NEP” since think the war communism economy and the NEP should be viewed as it’s own thing)

Trying to get into the real fine details regarding the Soviet economy - either the total period from Stalin to Gorbachev, or segments of that period. Really want to understand what went wrong, and what went right.

The problem I’m having is when I go to the bourgeois economic historians, they unsurprisingly shit on the economy under Stalin (or rather, emphasize the unsustainability of it long term) and praise Khrushchev and Gorbachev. Obviously that’s a biased route I’m not interested in going down.

However, whenever I go in the opposite direction, I feel like I’m reading sources that are maybe a bit too uncritical of the Stalin era economic policies. And you know what, maybe Stalin did actually get everything about the economy right. I’m open to that possibility. Obviously the track record is there. But idk, I haven’t found one source yet who has sufficiently shown their work on that (that I’m sure is due to me not finding the right sources yet). Like, when it comes to economic history, I don’t feel an overwhelming need to defend Stalin or criticize Khrushchev and Brezhnev, just trying to find a sober analysis from a Marxian source. I have a background in econ so I would feel comfortable handling something that’s a bit more technical, if such a resource exists.

Any suggestions welcome!

https://nitter.cz/HarrisonHSmith/status/1750309689114436087#m

Death to America and viva la revolucion!

Was just thinking about this since I’m wearing my Cuba WBC cap around town (from the most recent WBC when Cuba was actually “allowed” to be in charge of their own team).

I don’t have any myself, but thought you all might know some.

I’m not a native German speaker obviously, but doesn’t “Das Kapital” translate to “THE Capital”?

Also, English-speakers should call it just “Capital”. Calling it “Das Kapital” is just propaganda to make the title sound more menacing than it is.

Liberals will point to how improvements in quality of life have occurred in capitalist countries in recent centuries (debatable, and certainly not true for the entire world, but let’s assume they are correct for now). What is usually implied is that it’s all thanks to capitalism that we have the quality of life that we do, thus capitalism should be allowed to continue.

The thought I had was, do most of the quality of life improvements come down mostly to how agriculture and medicine developed? Meaning, famines were a harsh reality of life for much of human history, and modern agriculture has allowed us to now be in a position where globally, we can produce more than enough food consistently for the whole planet.

Likewise in regards to medicine… in the past just getting sick could be a death sentence. People had to live with incredibly painful conditions their whole life that we now have cures for. Honestly modern medicine is the one reason why I would rather live in 2023 than any other time.

What I’m getting at is… though these advances did occur under capitalism, I don’t think I would give capitalism the “credit” for them. Obviously socialism was not possible 200 years ago. I’m not denying standard Marxist historical progression. What I am doing though, is trying to attack the liberal narrative of treating capitalism as some god who has bestowed his mercy on us - that everything good we have is from Him, and thus we must give Him our praise and continue on His economic system into eternity.

The Soviet Union and China were/are both able to be incredibly productive in agriculture and ended their historic, periodic famines. The Soviet Union (and Cuba!) were/are renowned for their advances in medicine.

I think the only things you can give capitalism “credit” for is developing the productive forces, allowing for high levels of commodity production, and increasing levels of wealth (though not equally shared).

This is shaping up to be the thing right wing nuts get outraged about this upcoming week. I feel like this is a good litmus test… anyone who gets angry about this is probably way more of a white nationalist than they are letting on. You think these same people who be angry about a blue/white/orange tricolor, saying it’s too close to the Dutch flag?