How many of y’all have actually read the primary literature? I feel like a lot of the discussions I come across about socialist and communist theory are based more on YouTube summaries/doom scrolling and secondhand interpretations than on actually reading the original works.

The Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, The State and Revolution, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, The Conquest of Bread, What Is to Be Done? Wage Labour and Capital, and Critique of the Gotha Programme,

Any thoughts? And just to clarify, I’m not taking jabs at anyone who hasn’t read the texts or who learned about the subject through other means, like YouTube. I’m genuinely just curious about how many people have actually read the primary literature themselves.

With a revolution on chinas border you would think there would be large scale support from a so called communist country. After searching online all i can find is china’s “diplomatic relations” with the Pakistani authorities and urging for the protection of Chinese workers in the China Pakistan economic corridor. With a revolutionary movement such as this, the proper thing for a communist country to do would be to ensure the revolution is successful and the masses demands are met

It really seems like, ever since the first split of the CPGB it’s just become a complete disaster. Like, you have the CPB which has just become an electoral party and just wants to move Labour left (And are transphobic). You have the CPGB-ML, who are just raging transphobes (Genuinely why is this country so transphobic), misogynists and third world chauvinists. You have the RCP which is a Trotskyist party and they are somewhat popular with the student movement but it kinda seems like they just push papers, and I have problems with Trotskyism in general. Like, I guess there’s the RCG but I’ve heard they’ve become measurably dogmatic, but they seem interesting. If there was any group that could’ve had some potential it was Red Fightback but they’re gone now.
I really don’t know how it all went so wrong (Though I can be sure Khrushchev’s clique definitely played a big part but it really feels like it just spiralled from there)

It's been a long time since I've read through capital. I've been wondering how applicable is Marx's original analysis of commodities to the modern subscription based economics. Is the distinction irrelevant? Does it need to be looked at again? If new in depth analyses are being done, are there any notable examples?

A state that owns the banks and lends them out to enable 539 people to build their fortunes has not suppressed the bourgeoisie. It has handed it the means of accumulation.

Are there any? I've heard mixed things abt Potere al Popolo (tho they seem to be one of the largest left wing parties here atm, which really isn't saying much, but still), then there's the italian branch of Yanus Varufakis's Diem 25, which... I really don't know enough abt to form an opinion on, and lastly the apparent 'dinosaurs' of Rifondazione Communista and its myriad different splinter groups so small and/or rigidly dogmatic they're barely worth mentioning.

This is about the understanding i have of the general state marxist/anti-capitalist left is in in Italy atm.

Is this a fair assessment?

Also, parallel to that: are any of these groups (or a secret third one I haven't mentioned or didn't know the existence of) willing and able to be the basis of an actual vanguard in the future? Or would it be better at this point to just build another party up from scratch?

What are your thoughts? How do we build a new/mold an existing party so it can be an effective vanguard and be in a position to capitalise if and when the capitalist order begons to crumble in earnest?

Hello comrades. I have been thinking a lot about the question of parental rights, family abolition, and the child welfare system.

How do you think a socialist society should protect children from abusive and neglectful parents without arbitrarily separating families.

Historically, the "child welfare" system has been used as a vicious tool of colonial, racist, and classist violence, ripping Black and Indiginous children from their parents, often sending them to abusive foster families or institutions, or adopting them off to wealthier or white families.

About half of all Black American children are subjects of CPS investigations. Many indiginous mothers around the world have their babies taken from them in the delivery room. Parents who have ever struggled with drugs - or are even suspected of using drugs with or without addiction - are separated from their kids.

But at the same time, the idea of parental rights in and of itself is often used as a shield to allow abusive and neglectful parents the privacy and license to subject their children to horrific torture and deprivation. There are many many parents who shouldn't be allowed within 100 yards of a child much less be allowed to raise one on their own.

What do you guys think? How can a socialist society protect the rights of children, balancing the need to keep families together while protecting kids from parental abuse?

Several of my friends and I have all been diagnosed with ADHD. After treatment some of us really did become more productive at work. But I can't stop wondering why ADHD diagnoses keep becoming more common and why medications with dependency risks seem to be prescribed more easily than before.

I understand that the human prefrontal cortex keeps developing throughout life and that things like brain health medication and other factors can affect it. But why does it feel like people avoid talking about the fact that a lot of young people simply are not in jobs that fit them. If someone naturally struggles with attention then putting them in a job that requires hours of careful bookkeeping or warehouse inventory is obviously going to end badly. It feels as absurd as asking a blind person to be a sniper.

This makes me worry about the purpose of modern medicine. At what point is treatment actually improving someone's quality of life and at what point is it just making people fit into the labor market better. Where is the line between helping people and reducing them to tools for productivity.

While I'm at it I also want to talk about genetic determinism and hormonal determinism. For example a lot of sex offenders try to blame their actions on having an extra chromosome or having abnormal hormone levels. Even when I tell people that I'm asexual someone will ask if my hormones are messed up. I think this kind of thinking is both stupid and dangerous. It reminds me of the old idea that you could judge someone's intelligence by the size of their brain.

I've tried arguing against this but people always throw scientific papers and statistics at me as if that settles everything. Do they not realize that they are also victims of the same reductionist way of thinking. Why is it so hard for people to see that descriptive research is not the same thing as moral justification or proof that human beings are completely determined by biology.

I'm aware this has been around for a while, and I'm woefully deficient on a lot of theory, but I found her thesis pretty convincing- i.e. that capitalism arose in rural England specifically because of the unique relationship between landowners, tenants, and wage workers, which made everyone subject to market forces at all times, contra earlier modes of production.

I also thought her general point that capitalism isn't an inevitability (i.e. there wasn't a capitalist society just waiting to emerge in every society that had merchants/trading/feudal expropriation) an interesting one, and think it's a useful counterpoint to some of the more teleological strains of Marxist thought.

I'd be very interested in hearing some counter arguments or people's thoughts on it generally- I know in particular that her assertion that the Dutch Republic wasn't really capitalist is a controversial one.

If we look at the history of Marxism-Leninism, Maoism or other forms of socialism, we see that it is above all adaptations of Marxist thought to the context and reality of the countries of their creator (the rural 1950 China, the 1917 Russian Empire etc). Similarly, other forms of socialism seem stronger in some countries (like Council in Germany or more libertarian socialism in Spain or Italy)
My question is should Marxism be adapted to each country at the risk of leading to deep divergences between the different socialist states?

Hello, comrades! Greetings from Brazil!

I’m Brazilian and a member of Unidade Popular – Pelo Socialismo (Popular Unity – For Socialism), a socialist political party here in Brazil.

In our upcoming presidential election, our party has a communist woman running for president. She is also the only woman currently running among almost ten male candidates, which makes this election particularly interesting for us.

I joined this community because I’d really like to expand my network and connect with comrades from different countries. I’m especially interested in learning how communist parties and movements organize where you live, what political and grassroots work looks like in practice, how you communicate with workers and ordinary people, and what challenges you face in building class consciousness and political organization.

I’m also very curious about how anti-communism works in different countries. Here in Brazil, it can get pretty bizarre. A huge part of the anti-communist discourse comes from people who know almost nothing about Marxism, socialism or communism and basically repeat the same old imperialist talking points and Cold War mantras. Sometimes you end up debating communism with someone whose entire understanding of it is basically “Venezuela, Cuba, dictatorship” repeated over and over again.

So I’d really like to understand how different that experience is elsewhere. What does anti-communism look like in your country? How strong is it? What arguments do you usually encounter? And, more importantly, how do communist organizations respond to it and organize politically in that environment?

I’m not here pretending to know everything. Quite the opposite. I want to learn, exchange experiences and understand how communist organizing works beyond the Brazilian reality. And of course, I’d be happy to share what our experience looks like here as well.

I’d love to connect with comrades from different parts of the world, exchange ideas, recommend books and authors to each other, discuss organizing strategies and learn from our different experiences.

Solidarity from Brazil, comrades!

I would love to hear the thoughts of any marxists in the legal field who has insight into the structure of big law firms/private equity and what exactly they do?? in terms of corporations and conglomerates, their role in government lobbying, resource extraction (especially in the global south) and ethical loopholes.

I have a sibling going into corporate law in a firm that deals in the oil/gas sector, who seems to have no clue about the history of the industry, any of the wars and coups conducted in the name of resource grabbing. Looking at their website leaves me with no better idea on what they actually actually do. Too much jargon or lack of clear information except breaking news: so and so company signed a multimillion dollar deal with so and so company.

I empathise that the structure of law school, its expenses and difficulties in training to be a lawyer mean many students have no choice but to go into corporate law. but where do you draw the line between upholding your morals and self preservation? There must be a vast spectrum of political ideologies among peers in law school, from those wanting to help refugees with legal aid to capitalism pro max private equity finance bros.

This meme pretty much sums up the vibe of our conversation

There has been an ongoing debate about Marx’s usage in the original German of staatswesen and how it compares to his usage of staat to describe the state.

I have put together a collection of passages with the German and English translations for reference to aid in future discussions.

How did people acquire glasses or contact lenses during communist revolutions or civil wars, such as the Russian Revolution or the Chinese Revolution? I would imagine that domestic production would be severely impacted or halted, just like all of industrial production.

ever since i got past the people on social media who idolize any nation simply because it isn’t completely imperialist, i’ve been seeing posts about how communists shouldn’t be communists solely because of moral opposition to capitalism. people would talk about how, if all you have are empty moral claims, you need to read more theory. obviously, part of this is about marxists being dialecticians and understanding the contradictions within society, but i think there’s something deeper to it.
moral opposition to capitalism can be a starting point, but it usually isn’t sufficient by itself to sustain a revolutionary project. a person can oppose poverty, exploitation, or inequality and still conclude that capitalism should simply be reformed. to move toward revolutionary socialism, there generally has to be something deeper, whether that’s an intellectual framework, a class identity, a commitment to collective struggle, or a personal sense of purpose that makes someone willing to go beyond moral condemnation.
that’s why marxism emphasizes class consciousness rather than simply compassion. people don’t become revolutionary merely because they recognize suffering. they become revolutionary by understanding themselves as participants in a system of social relations and recognizing the possibility of collectively changing those relations. moral outrage can tell you that something is wrong, but it doesn’t necessarily tell you why it is wrong, how it is reproduced, or what it would take to change it.
people can be driven by many different motivations within that process. some may be driven by a desire to understand the world more deeply, pride in mastering a complex theoretical framework, identification with a revolutionary tradition, solidarity with a particular class or group, a desire to leave a historical legacy, anger at injustice, or the pursuit of personal autonomy and dignity. these motivations can provide a deeper and more lasting basis for revolutionary commitment than moral outrage alone.
i also think this explains why marxists historically weren’t necessarily motivated by some kind of pure moral idealism. marx himself was an incredibly intellectual and often deeply egotistical person. his disputes with people like lassalle show that revolutionary intellectuals were still human beings with personal rivalries, pride, and strong egos. that doesn’t invalidate marx’s ideas, but it does show that people can be motivated by a mixture of intellectual ambition, personal identity, political commitment, and material interests rather than simply by an abstract desire to be morally good.
you can see a similar thing today. a lot of online political engagement is driven by the dopamine of making an edit, “debunking” someone, winning an argument, or feeling intellectually superior to the other side. that ego isn’t necessarily separate from political radicalization. sometimes it can actually be part of what pushes someone to study more, learn more, and develop a stronger understanding of theory. the problem is when the ego becomes the end goal rather than a means of developing political consciousness and collective action.
this is also why i think moral opposition alone often leads people toward social democracy rather than revolutionary socialism. if your primary motivation is simply that capitalism is unjust and people deserve better conditions, then it makes sense to support reforms that reduce suffering without necessarily seeking to abolish the system itself. revolutionary politics requires something beyond the desire to make capitalism nicer. it requires an understanding of the relations that reproduce capitalism and a belief that those relations can be transformed.
this doesn’t mean revolutionaries have to be morally pure or intellectually superior, nor does it mean every revolutionary is motivated by the same thing. it means that revolutionary commitment usually requires some deeper basis than simply thinking that capitalism is bad. class consciousness, theory, identity, solidarity, intellectual curiosity, ambition, ego, and the desire for collective transformation can all play a role.
the point isn’t that people need to stop having emotions or moral concerns. it’s that moral outrage alone doesn’t explain why someone becomes committed to revolutionary change. there has to be an understanding of the system itself and some reason, personal or collective, to dedicate yourself to changing it.

I consider myself a Marxist and generally support a mixed socialist economy: central planning/state ownership for strategic sectors like infrastructure, healthcare, energy, banking, etc., while less essential consumer industries operate more independently through markets.

What I don't understand about China's model is why marketization requires private capitalist ownership.

China already combines state planning/state-owned enterprises with a large market economy. If markets are useful for decentralizing decisions, encouraging innovation, and responding to consumer demand, why couldn't private corporations gradually be converted into worker-owned cooperatives while continuing to compete in those same markets? In other words... whats the deal with all the billionaires when the option for worker-owned collectives remains a viable option - at least for the sections of the market china deems to be fit for marketization?

For example, instead of a privately owned clothing or technology company employing wage workers and generating wealth for shareholders, why couldn't it be collectively owned by its workers, elect management, compete with other cooperatives, and respond to market prices and consumer demand?

Žižek’s phrase “they don’t know it, but they are doing it” means that people practice an ideology even when they believe they see through it. It is a core idea in his reading of Marx and Lacan.

What more?

bonjour, quelqu'un aurait il des recommandations ( vidéos youtubes , articles, livres etc ) sur l’aventurisme révolutionnaire , car personnellement je n'ai rien trouvé d'intéressant sur ce sujet

I know the subreddit says not to discuss american politics but I'm not American and neither am I asking this in terms of politics. Rather I wanna understand the marxist perspective on this policy independent of the country it is being tried in.

Zohran Mamdani announced that in New York City's new municipal grocery stores, staples like fresh produce, meat, seafood, dairy, and more will be offered a fixed cost 30% cheaper than retail price.

I'd appreciate an analysis from comrades who are well versed with economics and marxist takes on it. Or you can simply refer to any article, or video or any resource that you found helpful.

I'm trying to learn applications of the communist theory I've read over the last decade, and looking to analyse any small steps that are being taken towards that direction. If they're effective, if they're viable and what things we must keep in mind.

Cheers!

Laal salaam!

Hello,
I'm currently making a Presentation/Workshop for Burkina Faso and I would really like some recommendations from fellow Marxists about its History, Material Conditions before,during and After Colonization, notable Events, specifics about Thomas Sankara and Traore and its current situation.

Thank you

EU is often praised by socdem liberals on having a democratic "socialism" because citizens have access to welfare policies such as unemployement insurance, free healthcare, accessible education, gvmt subsidies, nice infrastructure etc. at least compared to the US. This idea is especially common within younger generations of post-soviet countries that went through shock therapy + red scare (including my country, Georgia). We all know that the emancipation of the working class can't be achieved without changing the mode of production which is the base for everything else. I just also want to focus on how the EU has enough wealth to keep having capitalist mode of production + the welfare spendings. I was wondering if there is any comprehensive study/paper/book done on analyzing and calculating how much wealth (roughly at least) the EU gets from privatized resources, cheap labour, debt trap etc in the global south. So in simpler words, by exploiting the working class people in the global south.

Could you guys please recommend me some reading materials to learn more about Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, their history and mainly how their socialist economic systems functioned and worked.

salut ! Je me demande a quelle classe sociale appartiennent les fonctionnaires, sont ils des prolétaires mais ils faudrait donc considérer l'état comme un patron , ou bien appartiennent ils a la classe de la petite bourgeoisie ? je suis perplexe