[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / ausneets / choroy / dempart / egy / jenny / leftpol / vichan ]

/marx/ - Marxism

It makes you smart

Catalog   Archive

Winner of the 75nd Attention-Hungry Games
/caco/ - Azarath Metrion Zinthos

March 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Verification *
File *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

File: ff2cf96925373fb⋯.png (200.25 KB, 492x495, 164:165, 1efd98958ed8e6db30cd4b0bfe….png)


If you browse /leftypol/ you might be aware of this, but Paul Cockshott has started producing videos about his ideas.

This is the latest one he produced, about the principles of commumism:


It's disagreeing with both the Leftcom standpoint as well as with the Marxist-Leninist standpoint. I highly recommend to check out his other videos as well, he proves the labor theory of value, talks about the transformation problem, etc.

What is your opinion in this, especially on his latest video which surely has some controversial content?

6 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


That must be his worst video for sure. A tip somebody should give to Cockshott: get into a direct study of the matter of what you talking, with primary sources.

Lots of things he says are not truth or at least not complete truth but deformation.



>Lots of things he says are not truth or at least not complete truth but deformation

Can you give examples?




I'm also interested in where you disagree. Don't have to make a big effortpost, just list where you think he's wrong


File: 898d507a9826aa0⋯.jpg (64.4 KB, 800x800, 1:1, hoxha is anfem.jpg)


In his latest video, Cockshott argues that the idea that communism is a society where absolutely everything is given for free is a "Bukharinite delusion". He claims that because the leaders of many of the 20th century socialist states believed in this conception of communism, they thought they were getting closer to communism by using the profits of industry to heavily subsidize (for example) food, which lead to inefficiancy and shortages.

Thoughts on this? He goes on to explain the solutions to this problem (among other things not engaging in "cheap food populism", using "person hours" (labour time) for accounting instead of money, completely abolishing profit making socialist enterprises).

He starts talking about this at 9:30 in the video but I highly recommend watching all of it for it to make sense.



Cockshott is correct. In a country with private ownership of the means of production the state enforcing lower price for some particular good can work out if the profit rate in the sector is very high and doesn't fall so much due to the regulation that it goes below what's usual. If it does go below that, the supply of that thing implodes.

In countries with the means of production under state control, of course some things can be sold at subsidized lower prices. If something is produced at a price and quantity that the stores are emptied in a flash and people spend a lot of time waiting in line, that time should be considered as part of how efficient the distribution is, and it's reasonable to increase the price (and to lower it again when the quantity supplied is increased). Supplying some things with subsidized lower prices and without long waiting lines is sometimes also possible, but what's the point of doing that? Consider two people, one with very low income and one with better income, subsidizing the price of a thing makes it cheaper to buy for both. But if only the poor one really needs the subsidy, it makes more sense to address the issue by avoiding extreme inequality in income.

File: 109f9f03e5686b1⋯.png (134.2 KB, 500x712, 125:178, tumblr_p5anfj24UK1tnn5txo4….png)


Hey guys, I'm back! What'd I miss?



Sorry to disappoint.

File: 3a2c17eff7fc7b8⋯.png (6.35 KB, 255x143, 255:143, d8785d071b6f26ad2382cf9a73….png)


I'm from /leftypol/ and that board has been shitty recently so I went and actually checked the sticky for the other boards. I think I cam here once a year ago and was disgusted that anyone could like the USSR.

Anyways, now I'm an actual leftist and am open to actually drawing a line in the sand and deciding what I think more than "Socialism>Capitalism". I already have ML sympathies and /leftypol/s tsundere relationship with them make some interested. I heard this is where the MLs gather, so I thought this would be a good place.

Recommended reading would be great, because the /leftypol/ reading is kind of sparse. I've only read a book by Lenin, it was "The State and Revolution". It was good

16 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



>Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism

I had read elsewhere that the 2nd edition (the one you linked to) was full of "revisionism" and that the 1st edition was much better. I can't find much info on that though. Do you know if that is true, or know where one could find a pdf of the first edition?

Fortunately, a library at a local college has the 1st edition which I'm gonna check out next week.


File: bf0527cb526be64⋯.jpg (31.44 KB, 298x444, 149:222, Kuusinen.jpg)


They're pretty much identical. It isn't like the ideology of the CPSU drastically changed between 1960 and 1963, and the guy overall responsible for the book (Otto Kuusinen) supported the 20th Party Congress, otherwise he wouldn't have been tasked with overseeing the book's contents.

There's no reason to rely on the first edition rather than the second, e.g. the second actually points out that nationalism in the third world isn't always progressive, as it can also be used by reactionaries to argue against socialism.



Thank you Ismail. I'll continue reading the version you linked to, then.


File: 485b47d98921a63⋯.jpg (1.9 MB, 3024x4032, 3:4, 1.JPG)

File: c6d00c379e747fc⋯.jpg (1.1 MB, 1080x1920, 9:16, 2.JPG)

File: fcfb52b5dd64ee5⋯.jpg (2.28 MB, 4032x3024, 4:3, 3.JPG)


>Fortunately, a library at a local college has the 1st edition which I'm gonna check out next week.

Finally got the chance to check out the book. It's in a sorry state. It was rebound, seems like ages ago. The rebinding is also broken. It's still perfectly readable though.

Also, found that the same library had the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, which is pretty neat.



Man you are BLESSED.

File: 28aefeb684c046d⋯.png (94.24 KB, 804x592, 201:148, Screen Shot 2018-01-23 at ….png)

File: 78e7aeae467e42d⋯.png (52.64 KB, 771x352, 771:352, Screen Shot 2018-01-23 at ….png)


Do you agree with the Liberalist principles, do disagree? What would you add or take out, and why? I fully agree with the list.



File: 4b33afa03ff9d52⋯.gif (114.35 KB, 400x300, 4:3, lenin.gif)

>Individual Rights

Socialists have always argued that communism will ensure the maximum development of the individual. As Marx put it, "In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."


Marxists note that one cannot speak of a "pure," classless democracy. The state is under the rule of a certain class and its ideology. The constitution of such a state reflects the needs of its ruling class.

Socialist democracy is far grander in scope than bourgeois democracy. I once posted an example: https://www.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/5skve6/how_soviet_citizens_shaped_the_their_constitutions/

>Economic Freedom

The working-class, by abolishing capitalism, abolishes the exploitation of man by man and creates an economic system in which crises are done away with and the development of the productive forces can be raised to ever higher levels.

>Freedom of speech

"But, notwithstanding a decree of November 17th giving powers to the Government to suppress hostile newspapers, which was adopted by a narrow majority (thirty-four—twenty-four) by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of Soviets elected at the Second Soviet Congress, the newspapers of a number of capitalist groups, as well as of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, went on being published until August, 1918, with scarcely any interference. The wildest inventions (such as that about an alleged 'nationalization of women' in certain Volga towns), the most violent denunciations of the Soviet Government and the Bolshevik Party, the most open championship of the enemies of Soviet power, filled the columns of these newspapers. To turn over their pages nowadays - thPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at


File: 9ad75c6e7b9037b⋯.jpg (121 KB, 469x537, 469:537, Lenin again.jpg)


I'll quote good ol' Michael Parenti:

>in any given year the federal government hands out more than $100 billion to big business in price supports, payments in kind, export subsidies and export promotions, subsidized insurance rates, new plants and equipment, marketing services, and irrigation and reclamation programs. Additional billions are spent on loan guarantees and debt-forgiveness, including the recent erasure of most of the megabillion-dollar debt owed by the nuclear industry for uranium enrichment services provided by the government.

>Welfare for the rich is the name of the game. Over the years, the federal government has sold or leased to private firms, at fees of 1 to 10 percent of true market value, billions of dollars worth of gold, coal, oil, and mineral reserves, along with grazing and timberlands – all of which are the property of the people of the United States. The government has provided billions of dollars to rescue giant corporations like Chrysler, Lockheed, Continental Illinois, and over $500 billion to bail out savings-and-loan institutions. The government distributes billions in research and development grants, mostly to corporations that are then permitted to keep the patents and market the products for profit. The government develops whole new industries, takes all the risks, absorbs all the costs, then hands the industries over to private companies for private gain – as has been done with aerospace, nuclear energy, electronics, synthetics, space communications, mineral exploration, and computer systems.

>The government permits billions in public monies to remain on deposits in banks without collecting interest. It tolerates overcharging by firms with which it does business. It awards highly favorable contracts to large companies along with long-term credits and lowered tax assessments amounting to additional billions each year. And through nonenforcement, it has turned the antitrust laws into a dead letter.

>In regard to all this corporate largess, no mainstream commentator asks, ”Where are we going to get the money to pay for all these things?” an inePost too long. Click here to view the full text.



>Socialist countries adhere to this.

I definitely agree they should, but haven't they been mostly State Atheist historically?

Actively persecuting religious people isn't what I would call secularism


File: 3e5175642595757⋯.jpg (64.74 KB, 790x556, 395:278, East German CDU.jpg)


The only socialist country that pretty much outlawed personal religious belief was Albania. Its example was followed by no others.

At no point did Soviet laws persecute people merely for being religious. For instance, Emilian Yaroslavsky (who was in charge of the organization responsible for promoting atheism in the USSR) said the following in 1930:

>The programme of our Party, as we have seen, advises "to avoid carefully any offence to religious feelings of the believers, which leads only to the increase of religious fanaticism. This means that the Communists have to lead the fight against religion in such a way that no indignation of the believers should be evoked, as this would only strengthen their religious belief, instead of weakening it." . . . .

>It is necessary to avoid closing churches against the will of the overwhelming majority of the believing population, provided of course, that the places of prayer are not transformed, as has often been the case, into places of counter-revolutionary conspiracy, storage of arms, etc.

From 1918 till around the early 1930s there was a struggle waged by the Soviet state against reactionary clergy and the Orthodox hierarchy, which refused to recognize soviet power, opposed collectivization, etc. But by the end of the 1930s the Orthodox Church had come to acknowledge that the USSR was there to stay and church-state relations improved accordingly.

For more info on religion in the USSR see pages 65-74 of the following work: https://archive.org/details/HumanRightsInSovietSociety

In the GDR there was actually a political party for believers and clergy known as the Christian Democratic Union, which accepted socialism and the vanguard role of the Socialist Unity Party, and encouraged Christians to assist in building up the new society.

HerePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at

File: 32569ec2e71d312⋯.jpg (424.37 KB, 1600x1097, 1600:1097, johnson_1-102716.jpg)

File: 612e3ea0985ffae⋯.jpg (484.49 KB, 1600x1055, 320:211, li-zhensheng.jpg)

File: 427823205638d71⋯.jpg (118.13 KB, 536x409, 536:409, fd1ba6899d9152e8fda3bda450….jpg)


One of the favorite bourgeois/liberal talking points is how revolutions destroyed artifacts, art and symbols from the past.

Is there any truth to this? With the exception of the cultural revolution I'm pretty lacunous on this subject.

Isn't the concept of cultural revolution marxism turned on his head? Whereas the base maitain and shapes the superstructure and not the other way around?

And do you guys personally think that it could cause permanent damage ?


File: 3fcda082e35e8a9⋯.jpg (62.37 KB, 574x795, 574:795, Anatoly Lunacharsky.jpg)

>Isn't the concept of cultural revolution marxism turned on his head? Whereas the base maitain and shapes the superstructure and not the other way around?

The CPC itself repudiated the Cultural Revolution after Mao's death, and the CPSU and pro-Soviet parties criticized it from the get-go as anti-Marxist.

The Bolsheviks preserved cultural artifacts. They opened up private art galleries, theaters and whatnot to the masses. There's two useful compilations of Lenin's works on these subjects:

* https://archive.org/details/OnCultureAndCulturalRevolution

* https://archive.org/details/LeninOnLiteratureAndArt

File: fa62f423ead2ba1⋯.png (709.31 KB, 578x1081, 578:1081, gondolalala_by_Anonymous.png)


So I have a issue in regards to productivity. Essentially, I live in the middle of b.f. Egypt and am having a difficult time finding organizations even remotely close to where I live. I have thought about joining an organization, but even if there was a PSL chapter or whatever close to me, I understand that just being a member of a org is not enough.

What are some things that you guys have done to make yourselves useful and spread the word? Are there any food drives or charitable efforts that are /marx/ approved? Give me some ideas! I don't want to be one of those people who does nothing to help the future communists establish a DoTP


File: 35eb5eeb6eb3f09⋯.jpg (212.53 KB, 460x275, 92:55, ECP.jpg)

There is nothing wrong with getting involved in community stuff. Wherever workers are, communists should be there working alongside them (e.g. on the shop floor and in trade unions) or at least for their benefit.

File: f2608d9c16ea4d1⋯.jpg (140.14 KB, 1282x987, 1282:987, marx-engels.jpg)


Did Marx and Engels fuck each other in the ass?

41 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: c2b2ed41917b3d1⋯.jpg (124.46 KB, 640x1136, 40:71, DVNA-W6W0AEh3uG.jpg)



> a huge part of the working class doesn't have any Marxist sympathies either.

What do you base this on? Even in the USA I see tons of people criticizing the 1% and the injustices of capitalism. Many normies don't even realize that many of these ideas come from Marxism or if they do they have a purist idea of Marxism divorced from the "atrocities" of 20th century communism. Inadequate or not, its still what I would consider Marxist sympathies.

> who still do are typically the most uneducated and trashy ones.

One could also say these are the most likely to take revolutionary action but I'll leave that for another discussion.



I didn't even mention homosexuality in my post... but Milo does represent a particular strain of misogynistic homosexuality which is a hotbed for fascism and reaction.



Just because it's not "the gay gene" does not mean it is a choice.


File: df1c05fede8f2fc⋯.jpg (6.2 KB, 225x225, 1:1, funny.jpg)

<45+ replies

And I tough that /leftypol/ loves bait

File: 5039afcd9f95ec5⋯.jpg (54.6 KB, 460x287, 460:287, EuropeanMayDay.jpg)


Hey people and peepits, so seeing that a lot of anarchy boards appear dead and the mods gave the others that where up for claim away before I could get to them; I decided to create my own.

New to the whole board scene and not looking to steal anybody else's shine but I want to play my part in trying to make a difference in this messed up world. And creating a board for proper intellectual discussion seemed the limit of my reach at the moment. So if anybody sees this and is interested in visiting go ahead.




Forgot this.


good job linking it fag



File: 9a9fa3b2d07b125⋯.jpg (68.61 KB, 646x687, 646:687, 1515031235447.jpg)


>fails to link it himself

File: bdf93df33cf0548⋯.jpg (57.47 KB, 800x450, 16:9, 7c2b4f7eb31f4b04bf925f6596….jpg)


What should Marxist-Leninists think about the protests occurring in Iran?

2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



Source? Any proof of this?



Clean your mouth every single time you say something on Tudeh.


File: 5bbcab45edb9f20⋯.jpg (299.9 KB, 1062x1500, 177:250, __shana_shakugan_no_shana_….jpg)

This is likely a pro-imperialist provocation, just like the "Green Revolution".



>that's a party in exile. They have no connection to events on the ground in Iran.

Hmmmmmm, I wonder why that could be

But unfortunately >>7268 is right, even if there are legitimate proletarian elements of the protests it's clear that they've been hijacked by foreign states.




I don't know much on these protests, what reasons are there to believe that they're hijacked by western imperialism? Wouldn't be surprised they are, but neither would I if the protests are just genuine, because it seems clear that the freedom of women in Iran is unacceptably limited.

File: fc5b730ab554db2⋯.png (15.52 KB, 315x339, 105:113, invasion of czechoslovakia.png)


Hello /marx/ists, I come to you to ask about the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia. Was Dubček really a revisionist jeopardizing the security of the Eastern Bloc? Or was Brezhnev just worried about losing hegemony among the socialist states? I asked on /leftypol/ but the thread is a bit one-sided and I'd like to see more perspectives.

10 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



1. Not that it makes anything the USSR did bad, but you can hardly argue they were not a dictatorship, or very bureaucratic.

2. He DID want democracy though, as in freedom of speech, media, etc. which never existed in the Eastern Bloc. Wanting freedom stops him from being a genuine communist? It also seems obvious that the people of Czechoslovakia were behind his reforms and opposed to the Soviet intervention.

3. It obviously was an imperialist act to prevent the country from slipping out of USSR influence. Stop being so idealistic about the USSR, as if they didn't pursue imperialist goals just as well as the US. Are you going to justify the suppression of the Hungarian revolution like this too? I suppose you think Gorbachev was ebil for wanting more democracy and transparency too?



>Are you going to justify the suppression of the Hungarian revolution like this too? I suppose you think Gorbachev was ebil for wanting more democracy and transparency too?

>I suppose you think Gorbachev was ebil for wanting more democracy and transparency too?




Nope, actually not trolling. I don't see why wanting at least basic human liberties, listening to what people actually want or opening up to the world would be incompatible with communism.


File: 76964b354ac7ffa⋯.jpg (14.82 KB, 292x450, 146:225, Yuri Andropov.jpg)


>but you can hardly argue they were not a dictatorship, or very bureaucratic.

The issue is that criticisms of bureaucracy and shortcomings in democracy were used to write off the socialist countries and endorse whatever demagogic appeals were made by capitalist restorationists, whether Imre Nagy, Dubček, Gorbachev, or whomever.


As Szymanski points out in his "Is the Red Flag Flying?" (which I linked to in my first reply), there was actually working-class resistance to Dubček's economic reforms, which (among other things) would have resulted in unemployment, a phenomenon workers understandably didn't want to face.

As for the "popularity" of military intervention, here's a good example from the case of Afghanistan:

"In this connection, one of our young Afghan interpreters—a medical student from Kabul University—told me, in those first days of January [1980] when all was still in confusion, that he had been approached by a bourgeois correspondent (they were everywhere) who posed him this question: 'How do you feel about foreign troops—any foreign troops—being in your country?'

The question was a trap. Nobody is happy about having any foreign troops in his country, as a general concept, and if our student had innocently responded to this abstract proposition 'abstractly,' the correspondent would have immediately filled it with concrete substance. He would have quoted 'an Afghan university student' as having told him that he objected to Soviet troops in his country, and, from a Jesuitical point of view, he would not have been lying. But he had picked the wrong student in our friend Moneer, who, at 19, had already been in the revolutionary movement for four years, having joined a youth group.

He countered: 'I cannot eat what you offer me on your spoon with my eyes closed. What troops? Friendly troops or enemy troops?'

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
Post last edited at


File: f1cc6964937ef7f⋯.jpg (41.2 KB, 447x350, 447:350, Brezhnev and Andropov.jpg)

>It obviously was an imperialist act to prevent the country from slipping out of USSR influence.

Imperialism, as Lenin noted, is the highest stage of capitalism. It is not a policy decision governments can undertake. Either an economy is imperialist or not, and there is no evidence that socialism and imperialism are compatible; as Harry Haywood put it, "Without a monopoly capitalist class and without capitalist relations of production there is no fundamental and compelling logic in the Soviet economy that creates a need to export capital and exploit other countries through trade. As a result it also has no colonies and no empire to sustain."

Speaking in terms of "influence" or geopolitics in general doesn't tell us why the Soviet state pursued the policies it did. Clearly, the restoration of capitalism in Hungary and/or Czechoslovakia would have endangered socialism in neighboring states. This would have constituted an unacceptable political and military danger to the USSR and a grievous setback to the cause of socialism internationally, as was shown in 1989.

To argue that the USSR pursued "imperialist goals just as well as the US" is utterly unfounded. The USSR and its allies provided support for national liberation movements around the globe, came to the assistance of third world states seeking economic independence from imperialism, and itself ended the Tsarist-era colonial relationship between Russia and the other nations that comprised the USSR.


>or opening up to the world

Since 1989 we've seen how Eastern Europe has "opened up to the world." It isn't pretty.

File: 79d614d78ac7a32⋯.jpg (58.46 KB, 900x483, 300:161, Based Tito.jpg)


Were China and Albania right about Yugoslavia being a revisionist nation that restored Capitalism? How do the MLs of /marx/ feel about Tito? What are your general thoughts on Tito Ismail? Also, apologies if /marx/ has already had this thread a million times, I've only been posting on 8chan for a couple of months now.

51 posts and 44 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 9255a2d604d4bbd⋯.png (227.09 KB, 936x590, 468:295, Sad_Hoxha.png)


On how foreign capital dominated Yugoslavia:

>But what he endeavours to deny in his book is being proved every day with many facts by the Western press, indeed even by the Yugoslav news agency TANJUG, which, on the 16th of August this year, announced new regulations issued by the Federal Executive Veche dealing with foreign investments in Yugoslavia. Under these regulations the rights of foreign capitalist investors in Yugoslavia are extended even fur ther. «Under this law,» the above agency stresses, «the foreign partners, on the basis of the agreements concluded betwen them and the organizations of socialized labour of this country, can make investments in currency, equipment, semi-

finished products and technology. Foreign inves- tors have the same rights as the local organiza- tions of socialized labour which invest their means in some other organization of united la- bour».

Further on TANJUG stresses, «Under this set of regulations greater interest (on the part of foreigners) is anticipated, because it guarantees the security of the joint economic activity on a long-term basis. Besides this, there is now prac- tically no field in which foreigners cannot invest their means, with the exception of social insu- rance, internal trade and social activities».

Private capital, landownership etc. in Yugoslavia:

> The Yugoslav revisionists have issued special laws to encourage the private economy, laws which recognize the citizens' right to «found enterprises» and «to hire labour». The Yugoslav Constitution says expressly: «Private owners have the same socio-economic position, the same rights and obligations as the working people in the socio-economic organizations».

>Small private property reigns supreme in the Yugoslav agriculture and occupies nearly 90 per cent of the arable land. Nine million ha. of land belong to the private sector, whereas over

10 per cent, or 1.15 million ha. belong to the monopoly capitalists, or the so-called «social» sector. Over 5 million peasants in Yugoslavia are engagePost too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 4226cb3b54223f7⋯.jpg (12.44 KB, 320x241, 320:241, Titoooooooooo.jpg)


>They were kicked out because they threatened the revisionist drive to undermine socialism not because they were especially perspicuous Marxist thinkers or political theorists.

How did they "threaten the revisionist drive to undermine socialism"?

Khrushchev kicked them out because they wanted to kick him out. They had more "hardline" views on domestic and foreign policies compared to him (and Molotov certainly had a better grasp on Marxism), but I don't see how that's tantamount to a struggle between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism.

>That Ustinov said they were kicked out mainly due to Khrushchev's efforts shows the low-level of real support and consensus that he had within the party. Which underscores what we've always held that the Khrushchev clique undermined Leninist norms of party democracy in their ascent to power.

This is a bit ironic to say considering that Hoxha and Kaganovich (among others) noted the "Anti-Party Group" tried to remove Khrushchev using backroom maneuvers. It was Khrushchev who appealed to the Central Committee, which supported him against the "Anti-Party Group." The decision to expel them from the party was, however, Khrushchev's idea.

Khrushchev was later removed in part for trying to concentrate power in his hands, as Stalin had done. I can't see how you can argue that inner-party democracy worked better in Stalin's last years than after 1956.

>True, there is a similarity, but Yugoslavia's ethnic cleansing, ethnic violence, and warfare was on a scale far-greater then any of these conflicts.

That's because of reasons inherent to Yugoslavia's history and demographics, e.g. there was no Soviet equivalent to Bosnia.

I'm still waiting for evidence that inflation proves a country is capitalist.

>Private capital, landownership etc. in Yugoslavia:

Hoxha's approach is not much different Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at





>Mao initially argued that Yugoslavia had the higher ground in its disputes with Stalin.



File: 56f0b31296fb475⋯.jpg (52.14 KB, 600x433, 600:433, Tito visits China in 1977.jpg)


It was during a September 1956 discussion with a delegation of the LCY: http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/117035.pdf

The Chinese published an official English translation in pages 195-203 of the following work: http://michaelharrison.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Mao-Zedong-On-Diplomacy-1998.pdf

Post last edited at

File: c99e97b50051567⋯.png (2.09 MB, 3000x3000, 1:1, Earthchan.png)


So, I'm pretty skeptical about Climate Change and I remember there being an anon here who made a good thread and some good posts about it. It just seems to me that the whole Climate Change meme falls into line with the Austerity ideology and increased immiseration being promoted by the bourgeoisie and capitalism right now.

I don't think its much of a coincidence that the green movement and deindustrialization in the global north went hand-in-hand Environmentally produced C02 far-outstrips what humans do contribute to the environment. Furthermore, the correlation between C02 and temperature doesn't seem to be well-established.

The Climate change establishment seems to imply that climate is constant and that we humans have changed it. But, there's nothing in dialectical materialism that suggests to me that natural processes are constant and inflexible. Nor does it fit the historical or geological record which shows many wide fluctuations in climate prior to the industrial revolution.

Russian scientists have been predicting global cooling for more than a decade now and the extreme cold temperatures in North America seem to reflect that. The alternative thesis of "climate change" is that hotter average temperatures mean more extreme cold which doesn't make much sense at all. Hotter temperatures mean hotter temperatures, this would mean that North American winters would be milder overall even if there were some extreme temperature spikes. Is this really what is happening?

Anyways, I figured I'd get opinions on this here since questioning Climate Change orthodoxy is literally a bannable offense on a certain leftist board.


File: 1b3c0fa85e4baf2⋯.png (294.89 KB, 606x402, 101:67, 9382039_orig.png)

Colder temperatures are produced by melting ice caps, which is attributed to global warming.




As a note, I was searching for that thread you mention. I think it was called "Climate research is a bourgeois pseudoscience" or something along these lines but it seems it was deleted from the catalog.



Yeah, it got lost after this board got wiped, I don't know if a backup was ever made of it or the old threads here.



Some reactionary spammed the board back then and wiped it forever. Ismail modified some stuff so that sort of spamming should be much harder now.

File: 3b1401e8d8b8095⋯.jpg (454.43 KB, 1440x2174, 720:1087, 1502794110874.jpg)


Hello, /marx/ists. Ancom here who finds lots of useful stuff in Marxism. I have two (unrelated) questions, but I don't want to start two threads.

1) How is money and currency treated from a Marxist perspective. Does currency as a medium of exchange have any purpose in a communist society and would it be tied to labour time (labour vouchers)?

2) a. Has historical materialism been abandoned because it has not correctly predicted phenomena (a necessary quality of a scientific theory)?

b. What do you say to Popper who says Historical Materialism is not falsifiable, and therefore not a sicence?

c. Do you think Historical Materialism/Marxism needs to undergo a Kuhnian paradigm change to stay relevant, or do you think the anomalies within it still do not necessitate a significant theory change?

37 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.




Ok so as forums are broken, if you are here, take my email: bosenkodiamat53@openmailbox.org



Hey greek friend, could you translate this to english?

>Μόνο σε μια σοσιαλιστική Ισπανία μπορούν να ικανοποιηθούν οι λαϊκές ανάγκες, να επιλυθούν ζητήματα σεβασμού των εθνικών, ιστορικών, πολιτιστικών παραδόσεων.

Also I would like to know exactly what they mean with this ambiguous phrase:

>να επιλυθούν ζητήματα σεβασμού των εθνικών, ιστορικών, πολιτιστικών παραδόσεων.

Exactly the part that says "να επιλυθούν ζητήματα σεβασμού των εθνικών".



>Μόνο σε μια σοσιαλιστική Ισπανία μπορούν να ικανοποιηθούν οι λαϊκές ανάγκες, να επιλυθούν ζητήματα σεβασμού των εθνικών, ιστορικών, πολιτιστικών παραδόσεων.

Only in a socialist Spain would the people's needs be able to be satisfied, would issues of respect of national, historical, and cultural traditions be able to be solved.

That's a literal one. A better sounds one would be

Only in a socialist Spain would it be possible to satisfy the people's needs and to solve issues of respect towards national, historical and cultural traditions

Did you contact the guy whose email I sent you?



better sounding*



>Only in a socialist Spain would it be possible to satisfy the people's needs and to solve issues of respect towards national, historical and cultural traditions

My question is linked to the following: is there KKE, because those are words from the KKE, talking about "plurinationality of Spain" or only about national, historical and cultural traditions of Spain as a single nation.

>Did you contact the guy whose email I sent you?

Not yet.

File: d760ffeb0cd140f⋯.jpg (114.49 KB, 1024x683, 1024:683, cosplay.jpg)


how do we get normies to like marxism-leninism ?

25 posts and 11 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



>Yes but the solution isn't to say the equivalent of "we oppose immigration because it steals American jobs," it's to condemn capitalism for creating a situation where capitalists can employ undocumented workers (who have no legal means of organizing themselves into trade unions) to undercut wages.

This is essentially what I'm trying to say. Illegal workers are illegal and shouldn't be permitted to stay in the country unless they go through the proper immigration process. The likes of Trump are silent on the issue of punishing those capitalists who hire illegal workers in the first place though, which deserves a serious punishment. Controlled legal immigration is what I believe to be best, then the people are happy. Any hatred towards immigrants of course ought to be redirected to the capitalists who promote mass and illegal immigration.

>If you're arguing that present-day United States, currently the imperialist country par excellence, should be defended in the event of war, I don't see how that would be any different from World War I.

You'd be right. Americans are in a tricky position, because the USA is capitalism more than any other country. As you've said though, progressive patriotism seems to be way forward. Should the USA be threatened, I would hope for it to fall and be replaced by a better, hopefully Communist society. But then I'm European and it's common here to take an anti-American position.

>If you're arguing that a socialist United States should be defended from imperialist aggression then yeah obviously that's an entirely different story and I misread what you wrote.

I didn't make myself clear. Obviously if the US were socialist defending it would be necessary.

>it's still wrong to view stuff like Black liberation and women's rights as "distractions" from the class struggle

I think there's a fine line here. Third wave feminism (which predominates currently) is, I believe, idpol and a distraction which harms relations between the sexes. Women's rights sPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


I suppose step one would be to somehow undeniably justify the atrocities of every socialist nation in a way that normies would accept. That would put put Marxism a few steps toward sea level from the intellectual crater it had left upon its fall from being a viable and justifiable branch of thought.



>Robert Conquest

Source on this? The impression I got from his work was that he was willing to go as far as necessary to conjure a Soviet Holocaust


File: 1c8bcc233e173e2⋯.jpg (71.31 KB, 302x475, 302:475, Years of Hunger.jpg)


"In correspondence Dr Conquest has stated that it is not his opinion that 'Stalin purposely inflicted the 1933 famine. No. What I argue is that with resulting famine imminent, he could have prevented it but put 'Soviet interest' other than feeding the starving first—thus consciously abetting it.'"

(R.W. Davies & Stephen G. Wheatcroft. The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 2004. p. 441.)



you won't, the material conditions will. if you're living in one of the "well-off" imprialist countries and are surrounding by proles who make a decent living, chances are no one will adhere to your ideology and even if they do, you'll do it in a petty-bourg way most people on /leftypol/ do instead of actually organizing irl and studying theory

File: 5858d697cc74f49⋯.jpg (136.18 KB, 735x540, 49:36, britney.jpg)


Are there any Marxist groups (or even individuals) who are pursuing Marxism as a science, and not a political program?

I ask because it seems like almost all Marxists today (perhaps because the USSR's influence) treat Marxism like a secular religion.


>pursuing Marxism as a science, and not a political program?

Those are not mutually exclusive.


>Just as Darwin discovered the law of development or organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history [...]

>Science was for Marx a historically dynamic, revolutionary force. However great the joy with which he welcomed a new discovery in some theoretical science whose practical application perhaps it was as yet quite impossible to envisage, he experienced quite another kind of joy when the discovery involved immediate revolutionary changes in industry, and in historical development in general. [...]

>For Marx was before all else a revolutionist. His real mission in life was to contribute, in one way or another, to the overthrow of capitalist society and of the state institutions which it had brought into being, to contribute to the liberation of the modern proletariat, which he was the first to make conscious of its own position and its needs, conscious of the conditions of its emancipation.


Those two can only exist together, since marxism is a revolutionary science.

Delete Post [ ]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
| Catalog | Nerve Center | Cancer
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / ausneets / choroy / dempart / egy / jenny / leftpol / vichan ]