Well, they need to have some anchor or other to reality, i.e. suffering, as has been most prominent. Say social issues or movements/events they care for, etc. At that point you need to slide in materialist analysis and cause-effect type things, chain it for long enough (not that long) and you reach corporate capitalism. After that you run trough basic opposition and material analysis as you try to resolve the contradiction and reach conclusion its the system to blame. Then, we analyze the capitalist system by first and foremost exposing how profit is the driving force and how that hurts the common man. But its a case-to-case type deal. In general, walking them trough marxist analytical thinking and avoiding scary words is the general thing.


If you’re American, literally the board game Monopoly (created by a socialist and Georgist) everyone is familiar with it and everyone understands what happens at the end, you have to reset or modernize/modify the rules. The game simply cannot go on forever. At the end, the majority of players own nothing and can no longer play, they must provide labor for simple sustenance, and the ruling owner class owns the entire board. The bank must provide loans and speculative liquidity simply to keep the game going. Hmmm, sounds kinda like what the FED is doing. The end of the game is the end of capitalism as we know it.


What version of monopoly has loans and wages?


Every time you pass Go you collect your standard wage. You also collect income in the form of rent. If one person has money, and you don't, you can borrow from them.


You can borrow and barter.


“Democratization of the workplace” is one I use. In the same way nations were built by kings and then seized by the people through revolution, our economy is built by the bourgeoise which will eventually be seized by the workers. It’s not the best description, but it’s literally the only thing that’s worked for me in making a non-Marxist understand Marxist thinking.


I’ve had some success with a few people by comparing democracy to the workplace. In society, we’re supposed to have a voice that matters - we vote, and our government reflects that by making changes to policy (ideally anyway, I realize that here in the US it’s not quite a healthy democracy). But at work, you’re in what is essentially a dictatorship - you don’t get a vote about how things are done, you’re forced to abide by their policies or whims, you can be fired for any reason, and your employer profits from you - which is stealing the full value of your labor. Why shouldn’t we as a society be able to make laws that require businesses to adapt to the demands of the people? If you value freedom, equality, and self-determination in every area of your life, then socialism is the way. Democracy in society AND at work is both just and righteous.


My thinking of this is who builds the place we will work in? Would a star bucks have a CEO, or would a small restaurant chain have an owner? How would those places start up in the first place for a person to work in if the CEO/owner does not invest in building those businesses? Would a person of wealth participate in those investments, considering by rule of law, they do not own their investment since the workers do and make the decisions. I am trying to understand this challenge and how this can be achieved. I am looking for a serious answer, nobody has explained it conclusively.


The short answer is “the people”. The people would build the shop, the people would own the shop, and the people would make the decisions about running the shop.


The best thing I can think of to explain is to recommend the book “Another Now” by Yanis Varoufakis. In it he describes in some detail how a firm might be founded and run in an alternate timeline where socialism has been embraced after the 2008 financial crash. It’s a quick read and very interesting


i tend to go for “stateless, classless, moneyless society”


That's communism, not Marxism, Marxism is an analytical tool.


So most rural african communities




Cool, ill pass on that bullshit.


cool, be sure to use that word “community” again


the ruthless criticism of all that exists


I’d say, correct


Do you really think the ultra wealthy worked as hard as the people who work for them? What if instead of all the extra money went to the asshole on top, it went equally to all the people in the company? Have them watch Office Space and explain how all the problems would be solved if people were working to help people instead of doing the minimum to earn the absolute smallest amount of money the corporation is willing to give.


I feel like the key to talking to anyone about anything like this is to take away the trigger words/labels: socialism, Marxism, communism, maga, q, republican, democrat, right, left, trump, Biden, Obama, bush, regan, etc… and be empathetic to the commonalities that people have. People of vastly different ideologies can bro down about having empty bank accounts, feeling scared or hopeless, bills, medical needs, etc. just talk to people like people and not someone who is out to get them or fix their problems all at once with something they don’t believe in (yet). My $0.02.


"Under capitalism, man exploits man. But under communism, it's the other way around."


This is a silly question. Not all "Non-Marxists" are the same, and the approach for interacting with any version of this will vary depending on the conditions. Interacting with a "non-Marxist" lumpen in the urban slums is not the same as interacting with a "non-Marxist" who is a Silicon Valley labor aristocrat.




Reeducation camp?










Simple . That it does not work . Not one country has implemented it properly .




Bro has been commenting on r/latinafeet


> dirty, smelly, angry Please stop projecting.


Interesting that you didn't try to refute the more egregious accusation...


Fuck off, you lowlife.