What do you think?
Rate this book
Why You Should Be a Socialist
A primer on Democratic Socialism for those who are extremely skeptical of it.
America is witnessing the rise of a new generation of socialist activists. More young people support socialism now than at any time since the labor movement of the 1920s. The Democratic Socialists of America, a big-tent leftist organization, has just surpassed 50,000 members nationwide. In the fall of 2018, one of the most influential congressmen in the Democratic Party lost a primary to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old socialist who had never held office before. But what does all this mean? Should we be worried about our country, or should we join the march toward our bright socialist future? In Why You Should Be a Socialist, Nathan J. Robinson will give readers a primer on twenty-first-century socialism: what it is, what it isn’t, and why everyone should want to be a part of this exciting new chapter of American politics.
From the heyday of Occupy Wall Street through Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign and beyond, young progressives have been increasingly drawn to socialist ideas. However, the movement’s goals need to be defined more sharply before it can effect real change on a national scale. Likewise, liberals and conservatives will benefit from a deeper understanding of the true nature of this ideology, whether they agree with it or not. Robinson’s charming, accessible, and well-argued book will convince even the most skeptical readers of the merits of socialist thought.
America is witnessing the rise of a new generation of socialist activists. More young people support socialism now than at any time since the labor movement of the 1920s. The Democratic Socialists of America, a big-tent leftist organization, has just surpassed 50,000 members nationwide. In the fall of 2018, one of the most influential congressmen in the Democratic Party lost a primary to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old socialist who had never held office before. But what does all this mean? Should we be worried about our country, or should we join the march toward our bright socialist future? In Why You Should Be a Socialist, Nathan J. Robinson will give readers a primer on twenty-first-century socialism: what it is, what it isn’t, and why everyone should want to be a part of this exciting new chapter of American politics.
From the heyday of Occupy Wall Street through Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign and beyond, young progressives have been increasingly drawn to socialist ideas. However, the movement’s goals need to be defined more sharply before it can effect real change on a national scale. Likewise, liberals and conservatives will benefit from a deeper understanding of the true nature of this ideology, whether they agree with it or not. Robinson’s charming, accessible, and well-argued book will convince even the most skeptical readers of the merits of socialist thought.
336 pages, Hardcover
First published December 10, 2019
225 people are currently reading
4705 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 193 reviews
May 19, 2020
A helpful and accessible guide to socialism that I would recommend to anyone who wants to learn more about class, labor, and socioeconomic systems. I come from the field of Psychology and grew up in a relatively wealthy area and family, so while I’ve grown to endorse things like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal, I struggled to really understand the specific definitions of terms like neoliberalism, socialism, democratic socialism, etc. Why You Should Be a Socialist is a friendly and intelligent primer on these topics, such that Nathan Robinson writes in a welcoming way while still making passionate and convincing arguments for socialism. He writes about envisioning a more socialist world in which the class people are born into would not have such a bearing on their lives, medical care is provided to all regardless of people's ability to pay, and workers are no longer taken advantage of and abused by their bosses. He incorporates the concept of intersectionality and how class intersects with race so that his book does not just appeal to poor white people.
Though I still have a lot to learn about labor justice, after reading this book I do identify as a democratic socialist. As at least one other Goodreads reviewer noted, perhaps there is more Robinson could have included about proletariat revolutions, as well as voices of people of color, trans people, immigrants, and more who have been affected by capitalist accumulation and exploitation. Still, a great introduction to socialism for a novice like me.
Though I still have a lot to learn about labor justice, after reading this book I do identify as a democratic socialist. As at least one other Goodreads reviewer noted, perhaps there is more Robinson could have included about proletariat revolutions, as well as voices of people of color, trans people, immigrants, and more who have been affected by capitalist accumulation and exploitation. Still, a great introduction to socialism for a novice like me.
February 29, 2020
Accessible introduction to socialist ideas, I highly reccomend it.
December 11, 2020
Readable if rambling introduction to socialism in the context of 2020 America, with a theme of why Bernie Sanders is the presidential candidate who best represents what most Americans want. It clarifies how "socialism" means all kinds of different things to different people, but the core substance of the concept (fire departments, sidewalks, libraries, etc.) does not have to be scary. It's useful for people on the left who need counter-arguments to the standard talking points of the right. It might convert some open-minded "centrist" liberals who are willing to reality-test the current conventional wisdom. But I don't know that people on the right will have enough patience with Robinson's meandering bleeding heart moralistic commentary to get to the point of understanding his explanation of why democratic socialism is not the same thing as Stalinism.
March 12, 2021
Maybe a platonic 3.5 stars for me, so let's round up. Not a bad primer at all. The text is as approachable as the title suggests. It's decidedly non-sectarian, which is an important quality in this kind of a text, and it lays out both the essential moral case and a simplified version of the economic possibilities of socialism. It's a little thin at points; it's a little vague at points; it's a little didactic and preachy at points. But it's a sharp look at why capitalism sucks, why socialism is better, and why a better world is achievable. We always need more of those.
January 17, 2020
This book should have been titled Why You Should Be an Eccentric Social Democrat. Nathan Robinson does a good job of gently convincing the reader to leave behind the worst of American liberalism. Unfortunately, the book has fundamental shortcomings: it’s ideologically closer to social democracy than actual socialism, uses terminology in confusing ways, leaves out large swaths of important anti-capitalist analysis, and reduces socialism to a kind of moralizing philosophy rather than a movement grounded in material struggles.
The best thing about this book is that Nathan Robinson writes very clearly. The tone is friendly, and every argument is made from first principles. It reads exactly like the author’s work in Current Affairs: sometimes long-winded, but always accessible. Robinson never assumes, as too many “introductory” left-wing texts do, that readers know any of the left’s jargon or share our motives and presuppositions.
Yet the book has, in my view, two major shortcomings that prevent me from recommending it to friends who are curious about socialism.
First, the book uses terminology in confusing and nonstandard ways. Robinson spends considerable time expounding the superiority of his particular leftist tendency: libertarian socialism. Normally, I would be pleased to read something like this, but unfortunately, the politics advanced in this book aren’t consistent with the libertarian socialist tradition.
Libertarian socialism, as defined pretty clearly on Wikipedia or in this short explainer by the Black Rose Federation, is an anti-state ideology; it opposes both the existence of the state (regardless of economic system), as well as the use of electoral politics (i.e. accessing the power of the capitalist state) to advance the socialist cause. This book, on the other hand, not only doesn’t discuss dismantling the state, but puts its full weight behind the electoral road to socialism without any discussion of its viability or its consistency with anti-authoritarian principles.
On the whole, I could call Robinson a democratic socialist or social democrat, with a large element of utopian socialism. But I would not call this a libertarian socialist book, at least not in the standard use of the term. (I wonder if this ideological cloudiness is a Noam Chomsky influence.)
The second major problem with the book is that it omits a lot of simple yet important ideas and analysis that are crucial to understanding capitalism and socialism.
For instance, nowhere does the book define “class,” or “working class”/“proletariat,” or “capitalist”/“bourgeoisie.” It doesn’t explain why the proletariat (as opposed to the “middle class” or some other category) is at the center of the socialist movement. It doesn’t explain where profit comes from, or how the labor market disciplines workers. It talks briefly about specific oppressions faced by people of color, non-men, trans people, Indigenous people, and immigrants; yet it doesn’t show how these oppressions are intertwined with the mechanisms of capitalist accumulation, imperialism, production, and reproduction.
The result is not just a book that’s light on theory, which might not be a bad thing in itself. The problem is that, without some understanding of capitalist political economy, we easily devise the wrong tools to fight capital. When it comes to socialist strategy, Why You Should Be a Socialist reflexively assumes that convincing people to elect nominally socialist politicians to office is the only viable way to implement socialism. Nowhere does it discuss the many revolutionary strategies that leftists have developed. In doing so, the book ignores the structural barriers to overcoming the capitalist system from within government (a fact illustrated by a painfully long history of social-democratic failures). Many of Robinson’s heroes — Emma Goldman, Rosa Luxemburg, Errico Malatesta, and so forth — understood this well. Even other democratic socialist publications, such as Jacobin, at least give well-reasoned arguments for why they believe in the electoral reform path to socialism. Whatever your stance is, it’s irresponsible to leave out, in an introductory socialist text, the question of “reform vs. revolution.”
At some level, these glaring omissions have to do with Robinson’s skepticism of Marx and Marxism — indeed, the book uncritically channels the mainstream misrepresentation of Marxism as containing inherently authoritarian tendencies. At one point Robinson writes, “I know some socialists who believe that nobody can really be a socialist unless they have read Karl Marx. I don’t agree with them. To me, this is like saying that nobody can be a physicist unless they have read Isaac Newton.”
I agree in a very literal way: when I studied physics, I didn’t whip out my copy of the Principia Mathematica. But I did still have to absorb the basic principles discovered by Newton and his academic descendants. The same is true of Marx: one can be a plenty good socialist without reading Capital, but we still need to learn Marxist fundamentals from somewhere, because no other intellectual tradition offers nearly as much insight into capitalist society, its dynamics, and its vulnerabilities.
And so, eschewing an analytic critique of capitalism, Robinson relies on moral arguments about inequality and unfairness, so that the emotional register of the book is closer to left-liberal outrage than proletarian solidarity, and class struggle is minimized in favor of rationally convincing voters to support social-democratic representatives. In the burgeoning microgenre of “socialism 101” books, I can see a place for Why You Should Be a Socialist in moving some liberals a bit leftward in the narrow realm of policy. But if a friend comes to me looking for a serious primer on socialist, communist, or anarchist ideas, I unfortunately won’t be recommending this one.
The best thing about this book is that Nathan Robinson writes very clearly. The tone is friendly, and every argument is made from first principles. It reads exactly like the author’s work in Current Affairs: sometimes long-winded, but always accessible. Robinson never assumes, as too many “introductory” left-wing texts do, that readers know any of the left’s jargon or share our motives and presuppositions.
Yet the book has, in my view, two major shortcomings that prevent me from recommending it to friends who are curious about socialism.
First, the book uses terminology in confusing and nonstandard ways. Robinson spends considerable time expounding the superiority of his particular leftist tendency: libertarian socialism. Normally, I would be pleased to read something like this, but unfortunately, the politics advanced in this book aren’t consistent with the libertarian socialist tradition.
Libertarian socialism, as defined pretty clearly on Wikipedia or in this short explainer by the Black Rose Federation, is an anti-state ideology; it opposes both the existence of the state (regardless of economic system), as well as the use of electoral politics (i.e. accessing the power of the capitalist state) to advance the socialist cause. This book, on the other hand, not only doesn’t discuss dismantling the state, but puts its full weight behind the electoral road to socialism without any discussion of its viability or its consistency with anti-authoritarian principles.
On the whole, I could call Robinson a democratic socialist or social democrat, with a large element of utopian socialism. But I would not call this a libertarian socialist book, at least not in the standard use of the term. (I wonder if this ideological cloudiness is a Noam Chomsky influence.)
The second major problem with the book is that it omits a lot of simple yet important ideas and analysis that are crucial to understanding capitalism and socialism.
For instance, nowhere does the book define “class,” or “working class”/“proletariat,” or “capitalist”/“bourgeoisie.” It doesn’t explain why the proletariat (as opposed to the “middle class” or some other category) is at the center of the socialist movement. It doesn’t explain where profit comes from, or how the labor market disciplines workers. It talks briefly about specific oppressions faced by people of color, non-men, trans people, Indigenous people, and immigrants; yet it doesn’t show how these oppressions are intertwined with the mechanisms of capitalist accumulation, imperialism, production, and reproduction.
The result is not just a book that’s light on theory, which might not be a bad thing in itself. The problem is that, without some understanding of capitalist political economy, we easily devise the wrong tools to fight capital. When it comes to socialist strategy, Why You Should Be a Socialist reflexively assumes that convincing people to elect nominally socialist politicians to office is the only viable way to implement socialism. Nowhere does it discuss the many revolutionary strategies that leftists have developed. In doing so, the book ignores the structural barriers to overcoming the capitalist system from within government (a fact illustrated by a painfully long history of social-democratic failures). Many of Robinson’s heroes — Emma Goldman, Rosa Luxemburg, Errico Malatesta, and so forth — understood this well. Even other democratic socialist publications, such as Jacobin, at least give well-reasoned arguments for why they believe in the electoral reform path to socialism. Whatever your stance is, it’s irresponsible to leave out, in an introductory socialist text, the question of “reform vs. revolution.”
At some level, these glaring omissions have to do with Robinson’s skepticism of Marx and Marxism — indeed, the book uncritically channels the mainstream misrepresentation of Marxism as containing inherently authoritarian tendencies. At one point Robinson writes, “I know some socialists who believe that nobody can really be a socialist unless they have read Karl Marx. I don’t agree with them. To me, this is like saying that nobody can be a physicist unless they have read Isaac Newton.”
I agree in a very literal way: when I studied physics, I didn’t whip out my copy of the Principia Mathematica. But I did still have to absorb the basic principles discovered by Newton and his academic descendants. The same is true of Marx: one can be a plenty good socialist without reading Capital, but we still need to learn Marxist fundamentals from somewhere, because no other intellectual tradition offers nearly as much insight into capitalist society, its dynamics, and its vulnerabilities.
And so, eschewing an analytic critique of capitalism, Robinson relies on moral arguments about inequality and unfairness, so that the emotional register of the book is closer to left-liberal outrage than proletarian solidarity, and class struggle is minimized in favor of rationally convincing voters to support social-democratic representatives. In the burgeoning microgenre of “socialism 101” books, I can see a place for Why You Should Be a Socialist in moving some liberals a bit leftward in the narrow realm of policy. But if a friend comes to me looking for a serious primer on socialist, communist, or anarchist ideas, I unfortunately won’t be recommending this one.
December 11, 2019
Never mind the Gulag, they never understood Socialism well. Robinson promises the Heaven on Earth, probably after you die, but it's for a good cause, right?
December 19, 2019
I’ll admit that there was some uncertainty before reading the book as to whether I might call myself a socialist or not. I have not traditionally labeled myself as such, although I support left-leaning candidates like Bernie Sanders and generally subscribe to liberal policies.
It’s true, as Robinson points out, that it is only the left that seems to have any solutions. When you’re ideologically wedded to the market—as the right is—and it is the market that is creating the problems in the first place, you can have no possible solutions to offer. Cutting taxes and deregulation is just going to make matters worse, but you can’t admit that because that is the foundation of your political philosophy.
So if we’re going to do anything to solve our social and political problems, we by necessity have to look to the left. The left, at a minimum, does not cripple itself by limiting its own funding and ability to provide useful services and programs. But is socialism, specifically, the answer?
The answer depends on how you define socialism, and definitions are tricky. Not only is socialism intrinsically difficult to define, but it also has a host of negative historical connotations to battle against. When the average person hears the word socialism, the Soviet-style variety is unfortunately what comes to mind. While the difference between Stalinism and guaranteed healthcare should be obvious, some people simply can’t shake the Soviet connection. In the end, whether or not you would call yourself a socialist is largely a matter of how you might define the term. (Although it raises the question of why you would want to stubbornly cling to a term with that kind of historical baggage.)
Ironically, this book has ultimately confirmed that I will not be calling myself a socialist, based on how Robinson defines the term and on its historical baggage. In Robinson’s own words: “Personally, I consider myself both a radical and a pragmatist. I think there should be no borders, no prisons, and no bosses. That makes me a utopian socialist.” Elsewhere, he writes that “in the long term I’d like to live in a stateless society in which the means of production are democratically controlled.”
Well, at least you know what you are dealing with. While I agree with Robinson’s diagnosis of the major social and economic problems, and with his critique of conservatism, and with his vision of a more equitable society, I am far less confident that I would want to live in a society with no state, no borders, and no prisons. He has apparently more confidence than I do in my ability to predict what a world like that would actually be like. I work under the assumption that imagination and reality do not always perfectly correlate, and what you think you want does not always materialize in the way you might think. This becomes more of a problem the further you move away from the current state of affairs.
I do, however, share Robinson’s belief that political problems can be solved, and that the world can be made to be a more fair and equitable place. We might both agree on things like universal healthcare and education, and that progressive taxation can reduce economic and political inequality. We are probably both in favor of getting money out of politics and that the free market is inefficient in all the ways that matter most.
But where we disagree seems to be at the critical juncture where socialism turns into progressivism. In line with Karl Popper’s “piecemeal social engineering,” and with Joseph Stiglitz’s version of progressive capitalism, I would much prefer incremental reform to a complete overhaul of the system.
The law of unintended consequences is highly relevant here, and in addition, we already know that capitalism can create high levels of growth and wealth and a variety of goods and services to match a variety of preferences. It seems both more realistic and less risky to leverage the better aspects of capitalism in a mixed economy where the wealth that is created is redistributed in a more equitable manner, not unlike the Nordic countries of today. The thing is, you can agree with all of Robinson’s policy recommendations (universal healthcare and education, more robust worker rights, etc.) without also thinking that we should one day live in a stateless society or completely upend the system we have. But maybe that’s what makes socialism different from progressivism, and if so, then I have renewed confidence in calling myself a progressive.
Despite Robinson’s radical positions, the book is certainly worth the read. He correctly outlines the problems, makes a strong moral case for taking action, suggests effective policy recommendations, and delivers strong critiques of the competing political ideologies. But his insistence on the necessity of a utopian vision, and his overconfidence in knowing what drastic changes would or would not be preferable upon implementation make this book unlikely to convert many people over to radical socialism. This book may very well convert people over to the left—which I think it should—but it will likely stop far short of the stateless society that he thinks he wants.
It’s true, as Robinson points out, that it is only the left that seems to have any solutions. When you’re ideologically wedded to the market—as the right is—and it is the market that is creating the problems in the first place, you can have no possible solutions to offer. Cutting taxes and deregulation is just going to make matters worse, but you can’t admit that because that is the foundation of your political philosophy.
So if we’re going to do anything to solve our social and political problems, we by necessity have to look to the left. The left, at a minimum, does not cripple itself by limiting its own funding and ability to provide useful services and programs. But is socialism, specifically, the answer?
The answer depends on how you define socialism, and definitions are tricky. Not only is socialism intrinsically difficult to define, but it also has a host of negative historical connotations to battle against. When the average person hears the word socialism, the Soviet-style variety is unfortunately what comes to mind. While the difference between Stalinism and guaranteed healthcare should be obvious, some people simply can’t shake the Soviet connection. In the end, whether or not you would call yourself a socialist is largely a matter of how you might define the term. (Although it raises the question of why you would want to stubbornly cling to a term with that kind of historical baggage.)
Ironically, this book has ultimately confirmed that I will not be calling myself a socialist, based on how Robinson defines the term and on its historical baggage. In Robinson’s own words: “Personally, I consider myself both a radical and a pragmatist. I think there should be no borders, no prisons, and no bosses. That makes me a utopian socialist.” Elsewhere, he writes that “in the long term I’d like to live in a stateless society in which the means of production are democratically controlled.”
Well, at least you know what you are dealing with. While I agree with Robinson’s diagnosis of the major social and economic problems, and with his critique of conservatism, and with his vision of a more equitable society, I am far less confident that I would want to live in a society with no state, no borders, and no prisons. He has apparently more confidence than I do in my ability to predict what a world like that would actually be like. I work under the assumption that imagination and reality do not always perfectly correlate, and what you think you want does not always materialize in the way you might think. This becomes more of a problem the further you move away from the current state of affairs.
I do, however, share Robinson’s belief that political problems can be solved, and that the world can be made to be a more fair and equitable place. We might both agree on things like universal healthcare and education, and that progressive taxation can reduce economic and political inequality. We are probably both in favor of getting money out of politics and that the free market is inefficient in all the ways that matter most.
But where we disagree seems to be at the critical juncture where socialism turns into progressivism. In line with Karl Popper’s “piecemeal social engineering,” and with Joseph Stiglitz’s version of progressive capitalism, I would much prefer incremental reform to a complete overhaul of the system.
The law of unintended consequences is highly relevant here, and in addition, we already know that capitalism can create high levels of growth and wealth and a variety of goods and services to match a variety of preferences. It seems both more realistic and less risky to leverage the better aspects of capitalism in a mixed economy where the wealth that is created is redistributed in a more equitable manner, not unlike the Nordic countries of today. The thing is, you can agree with all of Robinson’s policy recommendations (universal healthcare and education, more robust worker rights, etc.) without also thinking that we should one day live in a stateless society or completely upend the system we have. But maybe that’s what makes socialism different from progressivism, and if so, then I have renewed confidence in calling myself a progressive.
Despite Robinson’s radical positions, the book is certainly worth the read. He correctly outlines the problems, makes a strong moral case for taking action, suggests effective policy recommendations, and delivers strong critiques of the competing political ideologies. But his insistence on the necessity of a utopian vision, and his overconfidence in knowing what drastic changes would or would not be preferable upon implementation make this book unlikely to convert many people over to radical socialism. This book may very well convert people over to the left—which I think it should—but it will likely stop far short of the stateless society that he thinks he wants.
January 11, 2020
I love Nathan Robinson, I am even subscribed to his magazine, but this book is frankly just embarrassing.
The CORE of a good introduction to socialist politics is in here. Nathan uses some of the same basic arguments and explanations that managed to turn me into a fellow traveler, if not quite a "socialist" yet. (I used to be a generally apolitical/soft libertarian sort of guy.) But this decent core is surrounded by unnecessary cruft. The introduction made me cringe, even ignoring the unfortunate references to Jeremy Corbyn becoming PM.
What this book needed is aggressive editing. Instead the publishers allowed Nathan to include awkward ramblings about himself, or stupid Twitter-style asinine "joke" segments. About half the content here is actively detrimental to the purpose of the book, and could have been easily cut out. As it stands, this works as a gag gift to conservative relatives, or a supplemental to people who already read (and like) Current Affairs. But I'm afraid the introductory few chapters alone makes it useless for converting non-believers.
To make things worse, I listened to the audiobook version. Nathan chose to narrate the audiobook himself. He is not a professional narrator, and his enunciation is very annoying. Listening to him speak felt like listening to an overenthusiastic highschooler giving his report in front of class. Unprofessional and unpleasant.
A real shame. I wanted to like this book, but I couldn't.
The CORE of a good introduction to socialist politics is in here. Nathan uses some of the same basic arguments and explanations that managed to turn me into a fellow traveler, if not quite a "socialist" yet. (I used to be a generally apolitical/soft libertarian sort of guy.) But this decent core is surrounded by unnecessary cruft. The introduction made me cringe, even ignoring the unfortunate references to Jeremy Corbyn becoming PM.
What this book needed is aggressive editing. Instead the publishers allowed Nathan to include awkward ramblings about himself, or stupid Twitter-style asinine "joke" segments. About half the content here is actively detrimental to the purpose of the book, and could have been easily cut out. As it stands, this works as a gag gift to conservative relatives, or a supplemental to people who already read (and like) Current Affairs. But I'm afraid the introductory few chapters alone makes it useless for converting non-believers.
To make things worse, I listened to the audiobook version. Nathan chose to narrate the audiobook himself. He is not a professional narrator, and his enunciation is very annoying. Listening to him speak felt like listening to an overenthusiastic highschooler giving his report in front of class. Unprofessional and unpleasant.
A real shame. I wanted to like this book, but I couldn't.
August 18, 2021
In this book, Nathan describes how to democratize a workplace.
In real life, Nathan fired nearly his entire staff for following his advice
In real life, Nathan fired nearly his entire staff for following his advice
August 4, 2020
Being a openminded crititical thinker and capitalist I decided to read this book to see what the other viewpoint was written by someone with that viewpoint. Sadly I only got 10% through before I could go no furthur as time is too precious to spend more of my life finishing this.
Throughout the beginning I found myself seeing where this guy was coming from finding high exaggerations here and there. But as I started this chapter the gross exaggerated examples were occurring more and more often to the point of being constant incorrect misrepresentations of anything that he opposed.
Came to realize that this author was going to childish extremes to demonize anyone who doesn't spend all their earned money helping everyone in the world just so they could get back to the same place in life where they began. Why work hard, take risks and sacrifices to gain for you and your family if it is to be redistributed throughout the world bringing you back to nothing. No-one would do that as it goes against what makes us human.
_________
So, things that I could understand from what he wrote were:
-The difficulty in paying for healthcare, rent, and bills in the current system. Healthcare needs a solution as people pay substantial amounts toward it annually.
-The need for a more protected environment. Thats one thing that capital no doubt destroys by its design of lower costs, sell sell sell, creating cheap products that won't last long leading to more buying when the person has to replace them. I think this problem could be better solved with tax code. Create lovely tax breaks and credits for companies and people that do good for the environment. Such good tax breaks that it'd be wiser economically for the company/person to be good to the environment. In capitalism societies the tax code is the best tool to encourage people to do certain things and refrain from others while maintaining freedom of choice.
__________
Some other pet peeves of authors viewpoint:
- Thinks that real estate investors/landlords, hedgefund manages, and investors in general do no hardwork. He fails to realize that they take a great risk that others are unwilling to, work hard to learn the trade. I lost over $30,000 investing in unwise stocks and was stressing constantly, it was hardwork.
-Thinks that only those with wealth "greedily" spend money on what they want. When everyone, even poor lottery winners, who comes across a surplus of money would most likely spend it on wants or save it up like a squirrel saving acorns for a harsh winter. That "holier than thou" ism is hard to read. Would like to know where all his earnings have gone toward.
-His critique of us having a powerful military. If he was to look into global affairs he'd see that cutting the military would weaken our ability to defend ourselves. Not to mention that the military provides jobs, careers, and training that creates strong, self sufficient veterans upon discharge.
In conclusion, I'm still a capitalist, Still support freedom of choice, Still open to anyone to persuade me otherwise (this book was just not a good persuasive essay for me).
Throughout the beginning I found myself seeing where this guy was coming from finding high exaggerations here and there. But as I started this chapter the gross exaggerated examples were occurring more and more often to the point of being constant incorrect misrepresentations of anything that he opposed.
Came to realize that this author was going to childish extremes to demonize anyone who doesn't spend all their earned money helping everyone in the world just so they could get back to the same place in life where they began. Why work hard, take risks and sacrifices to gain for you and your family if it is to be redistributed throughout the world bringing you back to nothing. No-one would do that as it goes against what makes us human.
_________
So, things that I could understand from what he wrote were:
-The difficulty in paying for healthcare, rent, and bills in the current system. Healthcare needs a solution as people pay substantial amounts toward it annually.
-The need for a more protected environment. Thats one thing that capital no doubt destroys by its design of lower costs, sell sell sell, creating cheap products that won't last long leading to more buying when the person has to replace them. I think this problem could be better solved with tax code. Create lovely tax breaks and credits for companies and people that do good for the environment. Such good tax breaks that it'd be wiser economically for the company/person to be good to the environment. In capitalism societies the tax code is the best tool to encourage people to do certain things and refrain from others while maintaining freedom of choice.
__________
Some other pet peeves of authors viewpoint:
- Thinks that real estate investors/landlords, hedgefund manages, and investors in general do no hardwork. He fails to realize that they take a great risk that others are unwilling to, work hard to learn the trade. I lost over $30,000 investing in unwise stocks and was stressing constantly, it was hardwork.
-Thinks that only those with wealth "greedily" spend money on what they want. When everyone, even poor lottery winners, who comes across a surplus of money would most likely spend it on wants or save it up like a squirrel saving acorns for a harsh winter. That "holier than thou" ism is hard to read. Would like to know where all his earnings have gone toward.
-His critique of us having a powerful military. If he was to look into global affairs he'd see that cutting the military would weaken our ability to defend ourselves. Not to mention that the military provides jobs, careers, and training that creates strong, self sufficient veterans upon discharge.
In conclusion, I'm still a capitalist, Still support freedom of choice, Still open to anyone to persuade me otherwise (this book was just not a good persuasive essay for me).
July 4, 2020
Absolute garbage. Robinson's brand of Harvard Dandy Socialism is puke worthy.
January 21, 2021
Aizraujoši - par cilvēcību un pasaules glābšanu.
February 24, 2020
this is aimed at the skeptic but as someone who already identified as such and has just So Many center-of-right family members, it's a great aid in organizing previously jumbled thoughts so i don't sound like an inarticulate mess when politics comes up at holidays
all in all very accessible, offers great jumping-off points to further reading
all in all very accessible, offers great jumping-off points to further reading
May 15, 2020
If you do not understand why Bernie Sanders has such a movement, I recommend this book. If you want to feel hope and will to fight for a better world, I recommend this book. If you despise our current state of politics and the "lesser of two evils" mentality, I recommend this book. If you feel that politics is not worth your time because nothing will change, I recommend this book. If you want to understand the perspective of many young leftists, I recommend this book. If you are curious on what "socialism" really is after having the s-word yelled at you, I recommend this book. If you feel literally anything other than hate and vitriol when hearing the word socialism, I recommend this book.
Nathan J. Robinson does a wonderful job putting feelings of many progressives into words. He describes the mentality of many folks on the left, and addresses criticisms of our opponents. This book is mostly for the skeptics who do not understand the fervent movement behind Bernie Sanders. It is also good for us strong Sander's supporters who care intensely about his policies to get additional perspective and facts to help argue our side. A+ Nathan
Nathan J. Robinson does a wonderful job putting feelings of many progressives into words. He describes the mentality of many folks on the left, and addresses criticisms of our opponents. This book is mostly for the skeptics who do not understand the fervent movement behind Bernie Sanders. It is also good for us strong Sander's supporters who care intensely about his policies to get additional perspective and facts to help argue our side. A+ Nathan
May 31, 2021
Why You Should be a Socialist by Nathan J. Robinson
Please give a helpful vote to my Amazon review - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-re...
Nathan J. Robinson is a Socialist and thinks you should be one also.
Why?
Because other people have nicer things, things that in Robinson's estimation are sins of luxury and should be banned by post-modern sumptuary laws. Robinson spends the first part of the book trying to engender a sense of envy and outrage at luxurious McMansions that have whole rooms devoted to making pizzas in pizza ovens. Because of this opulence, he asserts on the next page, children in Third World countries don't get vaccinated.
Huh?
Robinson does not explain how money earned by someone in America and spent by someone in America deprives anyone anywhere of goods. He also doesn't tell us exactly what he suggests, e.g., does he forbid the sale of a private pizza oven? Does he confiscate all money above a certain income level? He implies something like that but never comes out directly with the negative features of Socialism that must exist if Robinson's self-avowed utopian dreams are to come alive.
Robinson seems to think that "capitalists" - a label he applies like "kulak" to an undefined other - put their money into a swimming pool to lay upon like Scrooge McDuck. It doesn't occur to him that capitalists are people and actually spend their money, which creates jobs for other people who own businesses, we might call them capitalists. The Clinton administration played with a luxury tax with the result that it raised not a nickel for the destitute but destroyed yacht builders, putting their employees onto welfare.
Elsewhere Robinson assures us that leftists hate borders and want unlimited immigration. On the next page, he points out that American wages have stagnated and that Americans are dying younger and more often of drugs. It never dawns on him that the two things might be related. If he knew some history, he would know that the last time this happened was a prior period of unrestrained immigration in the 1840s, which saw American health, life expectancy and prosperity drop dramatically. (See Robert William Fogel, Without Consent or Contract.)
But who cares about results when Socialism is about solving that envy problem and dreaming utopian dreams.
Robinson provides a chapter on dreaming about utopia, which he feels distinguishes socialism from social democracy. Social Democrats just want to improve and reform things, while Socialists want utopia. He provides some long lists of what utopia would entail, and, frankly, it is quotidian and prosaic in the extreme. Ultimately, he concedes that utopia is about the following:
"My friends and our Current Affairs readers are obviously disproportionately young lefties. But I think their dream worlds are very appealing. There are some common themes: They want to be free of the stress of having to think about money all the time. They want to be abIe to choose what they do with their time. They want a vibrant culture, where art, music, and literature flourish. They want people to be able to satisfy their intellectual curiosities and understand science and the natural world, but also have plenty of time for play and leisure."
In other words, they want family and community. That makes sense, particularly since those things have been exsanguinated over the course of the last several decades.
On the other hand, they sound like children who want to hold onto their childhood. Some people want the responsibility or take on responsibility because they feel the call of duty. Such people join the military, for example. Other people get married and have children. Anyone who has raised children learns that the ability to choose what they want to do becomes less likely. They also want their children to do better and have better things than they had. This is so common that it constitutes a natural drive of human beings that will have to be eradicated before Robinson's plans to confiscate all of a person's property on their death because their children are not in Robsinson's opinion "deserving" of what their parents' delayed gratification has created.
Robinson dances around a definition of Socialism. While he offers some reforms - some of which might make sense, others of which are totalitarian nightmares - he refuses to be bogged down by "labels," notwithstanding how he loves labeling his enemies. Thus, conservatives are "mean," he says, offering the example of William F. Buckley calling Gore Vidal a "queer" and saying he would punch Vidal in the nose. However, Robinson omits that Vidal had immediately prior to those statements called Buckley a Nazi, something that Buckley had been drafted into the military to fight did not appreciate.
Robinson strains to avoid the connection of Socialism with Communism in the Soviet Union. But Robinson endorses Marx as having good ideas, although he was a bit too technical at times. Robinson doesn't mention Marx's flat-out racism and nastiness, apparently there are no bigots to the left either. Robinson also can't resist trying to defend the economic results of the Soviet Union relying on a 1988 study. The fact that it was a study one year before Communism fell, and while it was still bamboozling the world by claiming a non-existent domestic product, is a telling sign of Robinson's either being a dupe or trying to dupe the dupes.
I would be a lot less suspicious of Socialism if its adherents would finally admit that Communism was an inhuman failure.
When pressed on the totalitarian dimensions of Socialism, Robinson brings "libertarian" Socialists like Emma Goldmann and Bakunin into the mix. Bakunin in no way represents historic Socialism. Goldmann departed from Socialism to the extent that she recognized that the Soviet Union was a police state, something that other Socialists have managed to do, while the great bulk of them never quite managed that trick, choosing to apologize for atrocities rather than leave their friends.
I read Max Eastman's "The Failures of Socialism" after this book. Eastman was a longtime socialist in the period from 1910 to 1930. He knew Lenin and Trotsky. If anyone has any doubt that Communism was not Socialist, read Eastman's book. His description of the utopian hopes and dreams of the Russian Revolution could be mapped directly onto this book, including the outrage and envy.
For example, Robinson touts "[t]he great socialist writer A!exander Cockburn, when he worked at he Nation, used to ask all of his interns the same question: "Is your hate pure?""
Ah, how cute.
Except it's not Hate is an essential feature of the totalitarian tendencies of Socialism. Cockburn was talking about what Max Eastman called the "propaganda of class hate." The preaching of hate against the bourgeoisie was the well-spring of Socialism. The problem is that hate can change its target as we saw in the Soviet Union, as Old Bolsheviks and Kulaks were made the object of hate campaigns and, then, murdered. Eventually, as Eugene Lyons depicted in "Assignment in Utopia," the hate moved on to consume the proletarians who didn't manage to live up to the bright new utopia that the Socialists in power thought they were in the process of providing.
Utopian visions are the worst. There can be no utopia in this world. Utopian promises always fail. When they fail, those in power look for scapegoats.
Accordingly, the answer is to find a social equilibrium in opposition of forces. Government and free market should both exist. Robinson's vision eliminates the latter, leaving us to what he admits will be a dictatorship of bureaucrats. Robinson is coy in stating his goal, but since one of his dreams is an international taxing authority so that capitalists can't hide their money in other countries rather than being taxed for the common good, it seems clear that he intends to inject steroids into state power. (Also, we tend to call such "hiding" money, foreign investment, and governments compete for such investments by providing favorable tax investments. What Robinson is actually arguing for is preventing countries from competing for such investment.)
When you cut through the happy-clappy pep talk, you end up with a vision of envy, hatred, an alienated party base, and nebulous utopian promises through ideological fulfillment. Given Robinson's age and education, he probably has never been exposed to Eric Hoffer's exploration of totalitarianism in "The True Believer." These factors are precisely the factors that made for the rise of the Nazis and the Communists.
Robinson has all the elements: he just needs the moment.
Please give a helpful vote to my Amazon review - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-re...
Nathan J. Robinson is a Socialist and thinks you should be one also.
Why?
Because other people have nicer things, things that in Robinson's estimation are sins of luxury and should be banned by post-modern sumptuary laws. Robinson spends the first part of the book trying to engender a sense of envy and outrage at luxurious McMansions that have whole rooms devoted to making pizzas in pizza ovens. Because of this opulence, he asserts on the next page, children in Third World countries don't get vaccinated.
Huh?
Robinson does not explain how money earned by someone in America and spent by someone in America deprives anyone anywhere of goods. He also doesn't tell us exactly what he suggests, e.g., does he forbid the sale of a private pizza oven? Does he confiscate all money above a certain income level? He implies something like that but never comes out directly with the negative features of Socialism that must exist if Robinson's self-avowed utopian dreams are to come alive.
Robinson seems to think that "capitalists" - a label he applies like "kulak" to an undefined other - put their money into a swimming pool to lay upon like Scrooge McDuck. It doesn't occur to him that capitalists are people and actually spend their money, which creates jobs for other people who own businesses, we might call them capitalists. The Clinton administration played with a luxury tax with the result that it raised not a nickel for the destitute but destroyed yacht builders, putting their employees onto welfare.
Elsewhere Robinson assures us that leftists hate borders and want unlimited immigration. On the next page, he points out that American wages have stagnated and that Americans are dying younger and more often of drugs. It never dawns on him that the two things might be related. If he knew some history, he would know that the last time this happened was a prior period of unrestrained immigration in the 1840s, which saw American health, life expectancy and prosperity drop dramatically. (See Robert William Fogel, Without Consent or Contract.)
But who cares about results when Socialism is about solving that envy problem and dreaming utopian dreams.
Robinson provides a chapter on dreaming about utopia, which he feels distinguishes socialism from social democracy. Social Democrats just want to improve and reform things, while Socialists want utopia. He provides some long lists of what utopia would entail, and, frankly, it is quotidian and prosaic in the extreme. Ultimately, he concedes that utopia is about the following:
"My friends and our Current Affairs readers are obviously disproportionately young lefties. But I think their dream worlds are very appealing. There are some common themes: They want to be free of the stress of having to think about money all the time. They want to be abIe to choose what they do with their time. They want a vibrant culture, where art, music, and literature flourish. They want people to be able to satisfy their intellectual curiosities and understand science and the natural world, but also have plenty of time for play and leisure."
In other words, they want family and community. That makes sense, particularly since those things have been exsanguinated over the course of the last several decades.
On the other hand, they sound like children who want to hold onto their childhood. Some people want the responsibility or take on responsibility because they feel the call of duty. Such people join the military, for example. Other people get married and have children. Anyone who has raised children learns that the ability to choose what they want to do becomes less likely. They also want their children to do better and have better things than they had. This is so common that it constitutes a natural drive of human beings that will have to be eradicated before Robinson's plans to confiscate all of a person's property on their death because their children are not in Robsinson's opinion "deserving" of what their parents' delayed gratification has created.
Robinson dances around a definition of Socialism. While he offers some reforms - some of which might make sense, others of which are totalitarian nightmares - he refuses to be bogged down by "labels," notwithstanding how he loves labeling his enemies. Thus, conservatives are "mean," he says, offering the example of William F. Buckley calling Gore Vidal a "queer" and saying he would punch Vidal in the nose. However, Robinson omits that Vidal had immediately prior to those statements called Buckley a Nazi, something that Buckley had been drafted into the military to fight did not appreciate.
Robinson strains to avoid the connection of Socialism with Communism in the Soviet Union. But Robinson endorses Marx as having good ideas, although he was a bit too technical at times. Robinson doesn't mention Marx's flat-out racism and nastiness, apparently there are no bigots to the left either. Robinson also can't resist trying to defend the economic results of the Soviet Union relying on a 1988 study. The fact that it was a study one year before Communism fell, and while it was still bamboozling the world by claiming a non-existent domestic product, is a telling sign of Robinson's either being a dupe or trying to dupe the dupes.
I would be a lot less suspicious of Socialism if its adherents would finally admit that Communism was an inhuman failure.
When pressed on the totalitarian dimensions of Socialism, Robinson brings "libertarian" Socialists like Emma Goldmann and Bakunin into the mix. Bakunin in no way represents historic Socialism. Goldmann departed from Socialism to the extent that she recognized that the Soviet Union was a police state, something that other Socialists have managed to do, while the great bulk of them never quite managed that trick, choosing to apologize for atrocities rather than leave their friends.
I read Max Eastman's "The Failures of Socialism" after this book. Eastman was a longtime socialist in the period from 1910 to 1930. He knew Lenin and Trotsky. If anyone has any doubt that Communism was not Socialist, read Eastman's book. His description of the utopian hopes and dreams of the Russian Revolution could be mapped directly onto this book, including the outrage and envy.
For example, Robinson touts "[t]he great socialist writer A!exander Cockburn, when he worked at he Nation, used to ask all of his interns the same question: "Is your hate pure?""
Ah, how cute.
Except it's not Hate is an essential feature of the totalitarian tendencies of Socialism. Cockburn was talking about what Max Eastman called the "propaganda of class hate." The preaching of hate against the bourgeoisie was the well-spring of Socialism. The problem is that hate can change its target as we saw in the Soviet Union, as Old Bolsheviks and Kulaks were made the object of hate campaigns and, then, murdered. Eventually, as Eugene Lyons depicted in "Assignment in Utopia," the hate moved on to consume the proletarians who didn't manage to live up to the bright new utopia that the Socialists in power thought they were in the process of providing.
Utopian visions are the worst. There can be no utopia in this world. Utopian promises always fail. When they fail, those in power look for scapegoats.
Accordingly, the answer is to find a social equilibrium in opposition of forces. Government and free market should both exist. Robinson's vision eliminates the latter, leaving us to what he admits will be a dictatorship of bureaucrats. Robinson is coy in stating his goal, but since one of his dreams is an international taxing authority so that capitalists can't hide their money in other countries rather than being taxed for the common good, it seems clear that he intends to inject steroids into state power. (Also, we tend to call such "hiding" money, foreign investment, and governments compete for such investments by providing favorable tax investments. What Robinson is actually arguing for is preventing countries from competing for such investment.)
When you cut through the happy-clappy pep talk, you end up with a vision of envy, hatred, an alienated party base, and nebulous utopian promises through ideological fulfillment. Given Robinson's age and education, he probably has never been exposed to Eric Hoffer's exploration of totalitarianism in "The True Believer." These factors are precisely the factors that made for the rise of the Nazis and the Communists.
Robinson has all the elements: he just needs the moment.
March 6, 2021
This book was exactly what I was looking for. The author is a full blown utopian socialist who thinks practically all the worlds problems would be solved if only he and his friends were in charge. Of course the focus is on poverty and wealth distribution and how evil Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos are because they have so much money.
Nathan argues that business owners are not responsible for the success of their business and that they are essentially stealing money from their employees. This is pretty typical socialist dogma.
I’m a dentist. I own my dental practice. From my perspective if the government were to come along and say that I no longer own my dental practice and that either the employees (I would be one owner among my several employees) own the practice or the government owns the practice I would literally quit the day I wasn’t the owner. I also happen to be the only employee that quitting would shut down the practice. So then the employees could look for another dentist to replace me or they could all lose their jobs.
Being a dentist kinda sucks. The only reason I do it is because I only work four days a week, I’m my own boss, I’m off at 4pm each day and I make plenty of money to be comfortable.
If I stopped owning my practice and my employees became co-owners and got to make decisions about my compensation and other aspects about the dental practice. I would quit. My job would have gone from being pretty okay to unbearable.
I’m not the only one who would be like this. I don’t see how socialism doesn’t destroy the economy.
Nathan is also one of the people that argues that all complaints about socialist countries are invalid because Nathan doesn’t view them as socialist. So yes, no one has ever tried socialism according to Nathan.
Anyways, Nathan is a smart dude who thinks he and his friends are smart enough to solve all the worlds problems. He is wrong and I hope no one ever believe anything he ever writes.
Nathan argues that business owners are not responsible for the success of their business and that they are essentially stealing money from their employees. This is pretty typical socialist dogma.
I’m a dentist. I own my dental practice. From my perspective if the government were to come along and say that I no longer own my dental practice and that either the employees (I would be one owner among my several employees) own the practice or the government owns the practice I would literally quit the day I wasn’t the owner. I also happen to be the only employee that quitting would shut down the practice. So then the employees could look for another dentist to replace me or they could all lose their jobs.
Being a dentist kinda sucks. The only reason I do it is because I only work four days a week, I’m my own boss, I’m off at 4pm each day and I make plenty of money to be comfortable.
If I stopped owning my practice and my employees became co-owners and got to make decisions about my compensation and other aspects about the dental practice. I would quit. My job would have gone from being pretty okay to unbearable.
I’m not the only one who would be like this. I don’t see how socialism doesn’t destroy the economy.
Nathan is also one of the people that argues that all complaints about socialist countries are invalid because Nathan doesn’t view them as socialist. So yes, no one has ever tried socialism according to Nathan.
Anyways, Nathan is a smart dude who thinks he and his friends are smart enough to solve all the worlds problems. He is wrong and I hope no one ever believe anything he ever writes.
May 2, 2020
This book had ZERO effect on my view on socialism.
And to be fair, I'm supportive of democratic socialism / the Bernie Sanders platform. I'm also open to socialism (perhaps even pro-socialism!), in a more general sense.
The book is split into three parts: what are the modern day problems with American society, what is socialism, and what are other political ideologies? To match this theme, I'm going to break my complaints down into three parts: not explaining how socialism would solve modern day American problems, not fully explaining what branch of very broad government branch "socialism" he is advocating, and poor comparisons to other political ideologies.
First and foremost, there is a fundamental problem with saying the USA needs to change to socialism from capitalism by mentioning issues that don't involve SOCIAL OWNERSHIP and the STATE. When I hear Robinson go in depth about why you should be a socialist because of racial inequality, sex/gender inequality, animals (?), private prison management, etc, I cannot see how any of these policies are strictly tied to any particular political ideology. True, modern day political fights revolve around these topics, but it does not pertain to social ownership of the means of production aka the definition of socialism. I feel like I found a hidden Bernie Sanders speech inside the first third of this book. There are some good parts on how greed makes corporations do things like Coca-Cola or Purdue Pharmacy, explanations of problems with American modern day wealth imbalance. I'd like to see a much stronger arguments for ideal capital distribution for maximum utility, which is a core idea of socialism itself. Robinson talks about utilitarianism for like a paragraph, but this is absolutely essential for setting up the foundation argument for "why socialism". The core of socialism is not "Purdue Pharmacy tricked the American public into becoming addicted to opioids" even though we can rally around that.
Second, Robinson's brand of socialism remains very vaguely defined, at many points not defined, and at many points contradictory. Robinson defines at many points supporting a highly democratic socialism, and at other points supports "libertarian socialism". One CANNOT simply support both democratic socialism and libertarian socialism, as Robinson does in this book. Democratic socialism supports electing officials, whereas libertarian socialism borders on anarchy since there is a very weak state, and when there is democracy it is direct democracy, not through elected officials. Fundamentally, libertarian socialism supports focusing on reducing the size and influence of the state, which democratic socialism does not. The only distinction made here is "not authoritarian socialism", but I think it is never addressed why authoritarian socialism is inherently bad. Sure, previous authoritarian socialist regimes failed, but if the true goal is maximizing utility of all people by evenly distributing capital, then issues revolving government power is secondary? Analysis on the size or influence of the state is not done. It is just presumed that you agree that big authoritarian states are bad. Core pieces of socialism are not discussed at length, like common ownership of property. Robinson explains how private ownership of property originated via military force, an unfounded claim, or theft. This is true. But that doesn't alleviate the duties of explaining how common ownership would work. Then, Robinson says that we should spread shares from corporations into the individuals that work for those corporations. Finally, a core piece of socialism, coming to the light of understanding... no. Robinson does not detail how, under this spread ownership of shares, why there would be motivations to invest, and why there would be motivations to found a corporation. Instead, we waste time on non socialism/capitalism related issues, like how immigrants should be able to vote, how we shouldn't have borders, stating that the social ownership of shares would prevent the Amazon rain forest from being depleted (how?), and how we need to protect the environment. Robinson's library example is perfect for summing up how the meat of this argument is just air. "We should run off the library model, where we make a public investment using taxation, and get more return than the investment than what we put in." Then goes on a ramble about how things in libraries like knowledge and restrooms shouldn't be paid for. This is the argument for why we should have government at all, not socialism. Robinson argues for socialism by saying a public good should be ... public. What?
Third, Robinson's arguments for why socialism is better than "the other ideologies". A good piece of this chapter was "how to defend socialism from common retorts of your friends". If the book actually taught you what good reasons to support socialism were, you wouldn't need to memorize how to defend socialism to your friends in a bulleted list. Laughable. A terribly ineffective ramble in here about how if you support any other ideology than socialism, then you "have no empathy". Oh, and also, talking about how the modern day left is fractured, and needs an ideology to gather around as a platform. As if the left wasn't divided enough, Robinson argues "unify around socialism", for no reason other than "it's the only platform with actual viewpoints on issues". There is some discussion here for why left/right bill passing never changes the system. However, Robinson never takes on an official reform or revolution stance. Are we just to vote in several socialists, and see if they change the system? Conservatism is summed up as "people who have power worry about it getting taken away", which is incredibly partisan, and doesn't actually well define whose power. Again, we need to focus on clearly defining the STATE and SOCIAL OWNERSHIP for defining who has the power, how is it getting taken away, and who is it given to.
Recap: Robinson doesn't explain socialism, and probably isn't even supporting a socialist ideology using the textbook definition of social ownership of the means of production. At any level of socialism understanding, do NOT read.
And to be fair, I'm supportive of democratic socialism / the Bernie Sanders platform. I'm also open to socialism (perhaps even pro-socialism!), in a more general sense.
The book is split into three parts: what are the modern day problems with American society, what is socialism, and what are other political ideologies? To match this theme, I'm going to break my complaints down into three parts: not explaining how socialism would solve modern day American problems, not fully explaining what branch of very broad government branch "socialism" he is advocating, and poor comparisons to other political ideologies.
First and foremost, there is a fundamental problem with saying the USA needs to change to socialism from capitalism by mentioning issues that don't involve SOCIAL OWNERSHIP and the STATE. When I hear Robinson go in depth about why you should be a socialist because of racial inequality, sex/gender inequality, animals (?), private prison management, etc, I cannot see how any of these policies are strictly tied to any particular political ideology. True, modern day political fights revolve around these topics, but it does not pertain to social ownership of the means of production aka the definition of socialism. I feel like I found a hidden Bernie Sanders speech inside the first third of this book. There are some good parts on how greed makes corporations do things like Coca-Cola or Purdue Pharmacy, explanations of problems with American modern day wealth imbalance. I'd like to see a much stronger arguments for ideal capital distribution for maximum utility, which is a core idea of socialism itself. Robinson talks about utilitarianism for like a paragraph, but this is absolutely essential for setting up the foundation argument for "why socialism". The core of socialism is not "Purdue Pharmacy tricked the American public into becoming addicted to opioids" even though we can rally around that.
Second, Robinson's brand of socialism remains very vaguely defined, at many points not defined, and at many points contradictory. Robinson defines at many points supporting a highly democratic socialism, and at other points supports "libertarian socialism". One CANNOT simply support both democratic socialism and libertarian socialism, as Robinson does in this book. Democratic socialism supports electing officials, whereas libertarian socialism borders on anarchy since there is a very weak state, and when there is democracy it is direct democracy, not through elected officials. Fundamentally, libertarian socialism supports focusing on reducing the size and influence of the state, which democratic socialism does not. The only distinction made here is "not authoritarian socialism", but I think it is never addressed why authoritarian socialism is inherently bad. Sure, previous authoritarian socialist regimes failed, but if the true goal is maximizing utility of all people by evenly distributing capital, then issues revolving government power is secondary? Analysis on the size or influence of the state is not done. It is just presumed that you agree that big authoritarian states are bad. Core pieces of socialism are not discussed at length, like common ownership of property. Robinson explains how private ownership of property originated via military force, an unfounded claim, or theft. This is true. But that doesn't alleviate the duties of explaining how common ownership would work. Then, Robinson says that we should spread shares from corporations into the individuals that work for those corporations. Finally, a core piece of socialism, coming to the light of understanding... no. Robinson does not detail how, under this spread ownership of shares, why there would be motivations to invest, and why there would be motivations to found a corporation. Instead, we waste time on non socialism/capitalism related issues, like how immigrants should be able to vote, how we shouldn't have borders, stating that the social ownership of shares would prevent the Amazon rain forest from being depleted (how?), and how we need to protect the environment. Robinson's library example is perfect for summing up how the meat of this argument is just air. "We should run off the library model, where we make a public investment using taxation, and get more return than the investment than what we put in." Then goes on a ramble about how things in libraries like knowledge and restrooms shouldn't be paid for. This is the argument for why we should have government at all, not socialism. Robinson argues for socialism by saying a public good should be ... public. What?
Third, Robinson's arguments for why socialism is better than "the other ideologies". A good piece of this chapter was "how to defend socialism from common retorts of your friends". If the book actually taught you what good reasons to support socialism were, you wouldn't need to memorize how to defend socialism to your friends in a bulleted list. Laughable. A terribly ineffective ramble in here about how if you support any other ideology than socialism, then you "have no empathy". Oh, and also, talking about how the modern day left is fractured, and needs an ideology to gather around as a platform. As if the left wasn't divided enough, Robinson argues "unify around socialism", for no reason other than "it's the only platform with actual viewpoints on issues". There is some discussion here for why left/right bill passing never changes the system. However, Robinson never takes on an official reform or revolution stance. Are we just to vote in several socialists, and see if they change the system? Conservatism is summed up as "people who have power worry about it getting taken away", which is incredibly partisan, and doesn't actually well define whose power. Again, we need to focus on clearly defining the STATE and SOCIAL OWNERSHIP for defining who has the power, how is it getting taken away, and who is it given to.
Recap: Robinson doesn't explain socialism, and probably isn't even supporting a socialist ideology using the textbook definition of social ownership of the means of production. At any level of socialism understanding, do NOT read.
March 23, 2025
This was a very enjoyable introduction to socialism ( I really enjoyed the audiobook). It's passionate but not too complex and it gives a solid introduction to the core ideas of socialism. It also has a broad church approach to socialism which I certainly approve of. The purpose of the book is to convince people who aren't attracted to the ideology , of the worth of socialism. It's a very valiant attempt at that and I think there is a chance that some people who consider themselves centrists or vaguely progressive might be convinced. I'm much more skeptical of firm right-wingers. There is also a slight outdated aspect to it: it was written during the middle of the first Trump administration ( though I guess some of the things became suddenly very relevant again) and it's a bit too hopeful for the future at times then would be warranted. While there are some references from the whole world it's very much American focused with a lot of American examples and references. That was not a problem for me but it might be depending how well versed you are into US politics. All by all a very solid introduction.
May 23, 2024
not sure how to rate political works so giving four stars because it is an approximation of the percentage of ideas i agreed with/changed my mind about/disagreed with but understood the author’s point of view on/need to learn more about.
succinct, intelligently written, and emotional (recognizing that the latter may be a negative for some but i like my politics and economics to have heart).
would recommend for people like me who have been wondering: what even is socialism today?
next up: need recs for introductory books on capitalism and communism pls!
succinct, intelligently written, and emotional (recognizing that the latter may be a negative for some but i like my politics and economics to have heart).
would recommend for people like me who have been wondering: what even is socialism today?
next up: need recs for introductory books on capitalism and communism pls!
February 11, 2020
Of course socialism is still provocative in America these days despite Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and others mainstreaming "democratic socialism." Personally, I was already sold on the idea of democratic socialism before I read this book. However, I approached Why You Should Be a Socialist to learn more about how I could communicate it better to "skeptics" of it, which is exactly author, Nathan J. Robinson's, intention for readers of the book. I came away from it not only learning how to better communicate my views on socialism, but inspired to be more open about my views. This is particularly true where Robinson addresses the obvious retort of "unrealistic dreams of a utopia." He unabashedly admits to aspirations for a utopia and clearly explains how it is not unreasonable to do so. I grew up poor working class and came into conflict with my peers as my views departed from the narrow conservative views I was taught to believe. I changed my views from learning more about the things that draw ire from the Midwestern blue collar folk I knew. I figure if I can change, they can too for the same reasons I did. Robinson does this without condescension or being too "touchy-feely" either. Why You Should be a Socialist actually changed my life.
March 10, 2020
After disliking the very bad Why Not Socialism? I felt vaguely honor-bound to try to find a book that did a better job with a similar argument. This book is better but that's a pretty low bar. It just barely escapes a 1-star by rating by having some parts that are at least interesting and useful. Overall, though, it is nearly a complete failure.
I say it is a failure because it never tries to deliver on its title question. If the cover said "Why you should be a left wing Democrat?" you'd be closer to what this book is actually about. Robinson spends all of the book trying to convince you to be a leftist (as opposed to a liberal) and none of the book convincing you that socialism is good or necessary step beyond mere leftism.
The book starts out terribly. Honestly, just skip the introduction and first two chapters. They can all be summed up as "we do not yet live in a perfect world". Just listing problems is not the same as making a case that socialism is the solution to the problems. Indeed, for some of the problems he describes it is unclear what socialism has to do with fixing them. He gives the story of a man who commits murder in prison (Robinson writes that "Pruett was accused of killing a prison guard" but, in fact, Pruett was convicted by a court of law and a jury of his peers). Does socialism not punish murder? Or, if Pruett was wrongfully convicted, does socialism somehow insure that there are no wrongful convictions ever again? Why does being a socialist mean you are an environmentalist or against factory farming or in favor of animal rights? All of those things extremely orthogonal to being a socialist.
Over half way through the book he actually writes
And it is frustrating that's gone so long without trying to address the title question; the whole reason you picked up this book.
I was reminded of the "moral foundations" theory from The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion and its claim that liberals are hard-wired to only care about 2 moral foundations: harm & fairness. Whereas conservatives put weight on other moral foundations, including loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Robinson is essentially arguing being a socialist requires a genetic predisposition to not care about the other moral foundations.
Along the way, he creates caricature of the leftist. "They can't stop thinking about it". If you spend even a single moment thinking about something other than the injustices around the world, you aren't a real leftist. But who could measure up to that impossible standard? And who would want to?
It seems that Robinson's belief in socialism is reducible to his utopianism and his belief that utopianism is necessary. This kind of half-baked thinking is systematically demolished in The Tyranny of the Ideal: Justice in a Diverse Society, leaving Robinson without his sole positive argument in favor of socialism.
He never really mounts a case for why being a Franklin D. Roosevelt or Elizabeth Warren (both people he mentions in the book as having good policies but definitely not being socialists) isn't enough. What is it that requires full socialism per se as opposed to merely constraining unbridled capitalism with laws & regulations?
I say it is a failure because it never tries to deliver on its title question. If the cover said "Why you should be a left wing Democrat?" you'd be closer to what this book is actually about. Robinson spends all of the book trying to convince you to be a leftist (as opposed to a liberal) and none of the book convincing you that socialism is good or necessary step beyond mere leftism.
The book starts out terribly. Honestly, just skip the introduction and first two chapters. They can all be summed up as "we do not yet live in a perfect world". Just listing problems is not the same as making a case that socialism is the solution to the problems. Indeed, for some of the problems he describes it is unclear what socialism has to do with fixing them. He gives the story of a man who commits murder in prison (Robinson writes that "Pruett was accused of killing a prison guard" but, in fact, Pruett was convicted by a court of law and a jury of his peers). Does socialism not punish murder? Or, if Pruett was wrongfully convicted, does socialism somehow insure that there are no wrongful convictions ever again? Why does being a socialist mean you are an environmentalist or against factory farming or in favor of animal rights? All of those things extremely orthogonal to being a socialist.
Over half way through the book he actually writes
So far, all I have really argued is that outrage is necessary.
And it is frustrating that's gone so long without trying to address the title question; the whole reason you picked up this book.
A socialist is, first and foremost, not just perturbed by injustice, but horrified by it, really truly sickened by it in a way that means they can’t stop thinking about it.
I was reminded of the "moral foundations" theory from The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion and its claim that liberals are hard-wired to only care about 2 moral foundations: harm & fairness. Whereas conservatives put weight on other moral foundations, including loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Robinson is essentially arguing being a socialist requires a genetic predisposition to not care about the other moral foundations.
Along the way, he creates caricature of the leftist. "They can't stop thinking about it". If you spend even a single moment thinking about something other than the injustices around the world, you aren't a real leftist. But who could measure up to that impossible standard? And who would want to?
You’ve got to know what you’re striving for [...] Utopias matter because they help us understand what we really want out of life.
It seems that Robinson's belief in socialism is reducible to his utopianism and his belief that utopianism is necessary. This kind of half-baked thinking is systematically demolished in The Tyranny of the Ideal: Justice in a Diverse Society, leaving Robinson without his sole positive argument in favor of socialism.
He never really mounts a case for why being a Franklin D. Roosevelt or Elizabeth Warren (both people he mentions in the book as having good policies but definitely not being socialists) isn't enough. What is it that requires full socialism per se as opposed to merely constraining unbridled capitalism with laws & regulations?
December 22, 2023
I'm a big fan of Nathan J. Robinson's work and of Current Affairs in particular, and I think this is a great introduction and summation of the kind of democratic socialism that so many Americans have recently - myself included - begun to advocate for and believe in.
I don't imagine that this will convince many people who recoil at the very title, but I can see this being a great way to introduce people to your (if you're such a socialist) way of thinking, and perhaps turn a progressive liberal over the edge to socialist thought. At the very least, it's hard to refute the book's first section, which lays out so many of the problems that us socialists can't get out of our heads.
If you have a relative who might be receptive, or is interested in hearing from your point of view, or if you yourself have been keeping an eye on this whole socialism thing and don't quite know where you stand, I think it's a great read.
I don't imagine that this will convince many people who recoil at the very title, but I can see this being a great way to introduce people to your (if you're such a socialist) way of thinking, and perhaps turn a progressive liberal over the edge to socialist thought. At the very least, it's hard to refute the book's first section, which lays out so many of the problems that us socialists can't get out of our heads.
If you have a relative who might be receptive, or is interested in hearing from your point of view, or if you yourself have been keeping an eye on this whole socialism thing and don't quite know where you stand, I think it's a great read.
April 25, 2022
Grift from a PMC dork who fired his staff for daring to organize. His leadership at Current Affairs is a microcosm of failed communist states generally, complete with the eschewing of values in favor of personal power, and removal of anyone who might challenge his power. Typical "rules for thee" corrupt narcissist.
From Newsweek ("Socialist Magazine Current Affairs Fires Staff for Trying to Organize Worker's Co-op"): "Robinson allegedly then removed employees from the company's Slack channel the next day and "sent letters requesting resignations," while writing in individual letters to staff members that he had "irreparably lost faith in our ability to work together."
The employees said that 24 hours later Robinson retracted his statements and admitted "that he simply did not want Current Affairs to be a Democratic workplace" as "he believes that the magazine and media venture we have collectively created is purely his."
From Newsweek ("Socialist Magazine Current Affairs Fires Staff for Trying to Organize Worker's Co-op"): "Robinson allegedly then removed employees from the company's Slack channel the next day and "sent letters requesting resignations," while writing in individual letters to staff members that he had "irreparably lost faith in our ability to work together."
The employees said that 24 hours later Robinson retracted his statements and admitted "that he simply did not want Current Affairs to be a Democratic workplace" as "he believes that the magazine and media venture we have collectively created is purely his."
August 20, 2021
Straight up garbage, these ideas don't work in reality. Also, this guy doesn't even stand on his own laurels. Case in point: He just fired his staff for "Current Affairs" magazine for trying to form a workers co-op. LMA-all the way-O! The funny thing is he is engaging in capitalism on a daily basis with his magazine and book sales, and doesn't even realize it, or maybe he does and he's just a POS.
May 3, 2020
Good! Not too much in here that I didn't already know or thought already but it's clearly aimed at skeptics. Nathan's optimism is really motivating.
January 4, 2021
It’s a great time to be a socialist/ We should all be skeptics
Robinson makes clear that Hillary’s platform offered solutions to problems rather than being a polemic against the Trump contingent. He claims democratic socialism has become more popular in the last few years, which does not explain why Biden ran from being labeled a socialist.
As it always has been, a few a dirt rich and most are mud poor. The dirt rich, of course, have no desire to level the living field. One of my cartoon characters Preacher Phil pointed out that 80% of all living things are screwed over. (Actually, that percentage is probably low, but it is good enough for faith community work.) Phil thought it was God’s plan.
Robinson’s leftist orientation has a deep loathing for unjust and cruel things. The predators on the top actually employ a legal system of subjugation employment and for that affliction are allowed to choose congressmen and senators. Meanwhile, debt has become a defining feature of contemporary American life. (p. 61). College education is increasingly more expensive. Money still rules. Those on the top write the laws.
The job of business is to make money. To run a public entity as a business is an evil action.
Robinson counters that socialism does not mean control by the government but control by the people (p.111).
The term Democratic Socialist is poorly defined. Ah, nomenclature gone goofy… Robinson suggests that labels are frustrating. Whatever…
But, as Robinson insinuates, it is the socialists’ job to put radical ideas into other persons’ heads. Perhaps someday, even decades from now, there may actually be national healthcare in the United States if the idea is not overridden by Christians and other selfish prigs. Medicare for all, is probably, a whimsical fantasy, however. Status Quo Joe certainly fled from the idea.
After all, as Preacher Phil said, charity is merely an excuse for bad governance.
Robinson has big ideas, which indeed would make the U.S. a wonderful place (pp.169-174), but they sail off a lead balloon. Never underestimate the intelligence of an American voter or a Hoosier federal representative.
His political agenda is fantastic and I wish it would materialize, but it is merely a bag of impossible dreams. Yet, if we do not have such good ideas in the political exchange, we will merely slide further right. Implementation, says the author, takes hard work and visibility and candidates.
I wish us well…
Robinson makes clear that Hillary’s platform offered solutions to problems rather than being a polemic against the Trump contingent. He claims democratic socialism has become more popular in the last few years, which does not explain why Biden ran from being labeled a socialist.
As it always has been, a few a dirt rich and most are mud poor. The dirt rich, of course, have no desire to level the living field. One of my cartoon characters Preacher Phil pointed out that 80% of all living things are screwed over. (Actually, that percentage is probably low, but it is good enough for faith community work.) Phil thought it was God’s plan.
Robinson’s leftist orientation has a deep loathing for unjust and cruel things. The predators on the top actually employ a legal system of subjugation employment and for that affliction are allowed to choose congressmen and senators. Meanwhile, debt has become a defining feature of contemporary American life. (p. 61). College education is increasingly more expensive. Money still rules. Those on the top write the laws.
The job of business is to make money. To run a public entity as a business is an evil action.
Robinson counters that socialism does not mean control by the government but control by the people (p.111).
The term Democratic Socialist is poorly defined. Ah, nomenclature gone goofy… Robinson suggests that labels are frustrating. Whatever…
But, as Robinson insinuates, it is the socialists’ job to put radical ideas into other persons’ heads. Perhaps someday, even decades from now, there may actually be national healthcare in the United States if the idea is not overridden by Christians and other selfish prigs. Medicare for all, is probably, a whimsical fantasy, however. Status Quo Joe certainly fled from the idea.
After all, as Preacher Phil said, charity is merely an excuse for bad governance.
Robinson has big ideas, which indeed would make the U.S. a wonderful place (pp.169-174), but they sail off a lead balloon. Never underestimate the intelligence of an American voter or a Hoosier federal representative.
His political agenda is fantastic and I wish it would materialize, but it is merely a bag of impossible dreams. Yet, if we do not have such good ideas in the political exchange, we will merely slide further right. Implementation, says the author, takes hard work and visibility and candidates.
I wish us well…
January 20, 2020
It’s very refreshing and important that this book is published, especially in a time when we have democratic socialist candidate, Bernie Sanders, building a movement for progressive change in this country and using his platform to take the Democratic party in the direction is should be going in support of the working class.
Nathan Robinson is a very astute and well read writer, critic, and socialist who not only explains the various, often competing views of socialism, but he also makes very sound responses to those who criticize socialism. For too long the socialist left has not always been very good about explaining socialism without using traditional Marxist terms like “proletariat,” and “dialectical materialism.” You’re not going to find such terminology in this book. It’s not because Marxist terminology is not useful, but such terms not required (though useful) to understand the visions and soundness of a socialist political economy.
Socialism essentially seeks to make sure that the basic needs of all people are met, and that we are not exploited and deprived of our human rights and dignity by being controlled by the forces market driven capitalism. Socialism does not mean giving away everything for free or not having private property and rights, it means that everything doesn’t require a price tag at the point of need. We can actually collectivize our taxes and our labor to work in the common good of one another.
I’m not sure how much this book will reach its intended audience—people who are conservative or liberal, but I don’t think it’s also useful for people like myself who support and advocate socialism. Nathan provides sound arguments for discussing socialism with people who criticize it. The book also references dozens of other books, magazines, podcasts and other media that we can consume to develop a better understanding of how socialism can make societies better.
This book, along with Health Justice Now: Single Payer and What Comes Next are two of my favorite books about visions for change. It’s so important that we not only read and talk about capitalism, but that we also talk about the system, but also more importantly how it should be changed.
Lastly, I like this book because Robinson makes it somewhat personal. He’s so correct when he says people who advocate socialism are typically caring individuals who hate to see people oppressed, exploited and marginalized. Though it’s cliché to say it, we do “think a better world is possible”, and we won’t keep our mouths shut about the need for change. We’re socialist because we give a damn.
Nathan Robinson is a very astute and well read writer, critic, and socialist who not only explains the various, often competing views of socialism, but he also makes very sound responses to those who criticize socialism. For too long the socialist left has not always been very good about explaining socialism without using traditional Marxist terms like “proletariat,” and “dialectical materialism.” You’re not going to find such terminology in this book. It’s not because Marxist terminology is not useful, but such terms not required (though useful) to understand the visions and soundness of a socialist political economy.
Socialism essentially seeks to make sure that the basic needs of all people are met, and that we are not exploited and deprived of our human rights and dignity by being controlled by the forces market driven capitalism. Socialism does not mean giving away everything for free or not having private property and rights, it means that everything doesn’t require a price tag at the point of need. We can actually collectivize our taxes and our labor to work in the common good of one another.
I’m not sure how much this book will reach its intended audience—people who are conservative or liberal, but I don’t think it’s also useful for people like myself who support and advocate socialism. Nathan provides sound arguments for discussing socialism with people who criticize it. The book also references dozens of other books, magazines, podcasts and other media that we can consume to develop a better understanding of how socialism can make societies better.
This book, along with Health Justice Now: Single Payer and What Comes Next are two of my favorite books about visions for change. It’s so important that we not only read and talk about capitalism, but that we also talk about the system, but also more importantly how it should be changed.
Lastly, I like this book because Robinson makes it somewhat personal. He’s so correct when he says people who advocate socialism are typically caring individuals who hate to see people oppressed, exploited and marginalized. Though it’s cliché to say it, we do “think a better world is possible”, and we won’t keep our mouths shut about the need for change. We’re socialist because we give a damn.
September 1, 2021
I really enjoyed this, and as far as a "personal rating" I'd give it 5 stars, because it was cathartic and thought-provoking. That said, though, I don't think it necessarily accomplished what it set out to do: be a book that could convince staunch capitalists that socialism is a better view. Growing up in a very conservative family, I'm familiar with many of the arguments and POV of conservatives, and I'm just not sure this was strong enough.
For me, though, someone who had shared most of the views in the book going in but looking to develop, define, and think through those views, it was pretty great. It reiterated a lot of things, and allowed me to think critically about why I did or did not agree with a certain aspect.
So yeah. Highly recommended if you're already considering socialism, or are at least open to it, or even if you just look at the world and see a lot wrong with it--if you have empathy for your fellow human beings.
For me, though, someone who had shared most of the views in the book going in but looking to develop, define, and think through those views, it was pretty great. It reiterated a lot of things, and allowed me to think critically about why I did or did not agree with a certain aspect.
So yeah. Highly recommended if you're already considering socialism, or are at least open to it, or even if you just look at the world and see a lot wrong with it--if you have empathy for your fellow human beings.
February 24, 2020
A boomer friend of mine recently asked me if "all you young people" really want a socialist society. I said I couldn't speak for several entire generations (I'm almost 30), but that personally all I was dead certain of was that "I'm real tired of capitalism."
In Why You Should Be A Socialist, Robinson approaches a topic that has the capacity to overwhelm, depress, confuse, and bore with an incredible amount of humor, compassion, and clarity. The arguments are levelheaded and cover and discuss several common counterarguments.
I'm still not sure I identify as a socialist, but this book is an incredible read and I highly recommend it.
And jfc, there are no words for the depths to which I despise Ayn Rand.
In Why You Should Be A Socialist, Robinson approaches a topic that has the capacity to overwhelm, depress, confuse, and bore with an incredible amount of humor, compassion, and clarity. The arguments are levelheaded and cover and discuss several common counterarguments.
I'm still not sure I identify as a socialist, but this book is an incredible read and I highly recommend it.
And jfc, there are no words for the depths to which I despise Ayn Rand.
July 6, 2020
This is a good primer if you're curious about the word socialism and one of the many ways it can be used. I enjoy Nathan J. Robinson's writing in general because he's accessible and generally tries to make arguments in simple terms, even if he tends to run on and on. This is less a book about arguing the finer details, or even really a material analysis, and more about the moral position. I think some people will find fault in that, and there is some legitimacy to those claims, but I think the argument here is more to gain sympathy for the cause, and start to instill some sense of solidarity with those around you.
Again I think it's great for people who are curious and have no other ways to really dive in, and don't have a deep understanding of materialism in the marxist sense.
Again I think it's great for people who are curious and have no other ways to really dive in, and don't have a deep understanding of materialism in the marxist sense.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 193 reviews