[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 4am / ashleyj / baphomet / dempart / doomer / leftpol / mde / vtest ]

/marx/ - Marxism

It makes you smart

Catalog   Archive

Winner of the 68rd Attention-Hungry Games
/d/ - Home of Headswap and Detachable Girl Threads

January 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: 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.

File: f17482c9b850579⋯.jpg (25.15 KB, 306x423, 34:47, article-2537496-1A8F08C900….jpg)


what do you think about Eric Hobsbawm. He's a

famous historian, is openly communist, and has sympathies towards the soviet union. Are there any other historians like him.


File: 9a9a2e128b3ca6c⋯.jpg (103.07 KB, 461x662, 461:662, Aptheker.jpg)

As far as his politics went, they weren't amazing. In the 1970s he was involved in the Eurocommunist movement, which argued that Leninism was cool and all, but it wasn't really relevant to Western Europe which could achieve socialism entirely via peaceful means and without the working-class in a vanguard role.

Eurocommunists (including Hobsbawm) also argued absurd things like Allende's downfall being due to his "sectarian mistakes," rather than (as anyone else would argue) due to an overreliance on bourgeois legality and compromises.

As a historian though, he's written good stuff, and yeah there were plenty of Marxist historians similar to him ('cept better politically): Christopher Hill and A.L. Morton (who specialized in British history), Philip S. Foner, Herbert Aptheker and Anna Rochester (to name three Americans), Stanley Ryerson (who wrote on Canadian history), etc.



>and has sympathies towards the soviet union.



Hello Ismail, and others.

First of all thank you for all the work you do here and elsewhere. Fascinating.

I wondered whether you could recommend (as you have likely already done elsewhere) some introductory works on the history of the USSR, the history of Communism, etc, by sympathetic (or Soviet themselves) authors.

I'm also very interesting in any material regarding histories of Lenin (the man) you may find worthwhile, plus overarching histories of Communist movements in Europe.





Found your reading list elsewhere. unfortunately cannot delete my post. thanks anyway


File: 5fe958cce8e42aa⋯.jpg (27.13 KB, 303x446, 303:446, Lenin and the Russian Revo….jpg)


Well, for the benefit of others:

https://archive.org/details/lininandtherussi035179mbp ("Lenin and the Russian Revolution" is, I think, the best intro to Lenin, Leninism, the October Revolution and the first years of Soviet Russia)

https://archive.org/details/HistoryUSSREraSocialism (history of the USSR written by Soviet academics, covering 1917-1981)

http://b-ok.org/book/1246151/ea7f45 (the best Marxist analysis I know of concerning the 1980s and collapse of socialism)

As far as the "history of communism" goes, two books that should be useful:

* https://archive.org/details/TheInternationale (histories of the First, Second and Third International)

* https://archive.org/details/InternationalWorkingClassAndCommunistMovementHistoricalRecord (a Soviet book covering similar territory as the above-mentioned work)

If you have any other requests, feel free.

File: d4f14e363a6fbdd⋯.jpg (1.74 MB, 2407x1420, 2407:1420, Jonestown.jpg)


Strange as it may seem, in 2018 I'm going to run a simulation of life in Jonestown, the famous agricultural commune which ended in mass murder-suicide at the orders of avowed socialist Jim Jones.

Next year is the 40th anniversary of that event and I'm receiving assistance from an academic website to make the simulation as realistic as reasonably possible.

Participants join as individuals, either within Jonestown (e.g. nurses, teachers, ordinary laborers, senior citizens, members of Jones' inner circle, etc.) or outside of it (such as a member of the "Concerned Relatives" group in the US which denounced the settlement as a concentration camp and sought to rescue relatives from it.)

I assume few people on here would actually be interested in participating (it'll be run on my forum, eregime.org), but I've read over a dozen books on the subject (plus numerous articles) and would be glad to answer any questions anyone happens to have relating to Jim Jones, Peoples Temple, and Jonestown.

1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 8e65c606ddd54ff⋯.jpg (316.98 KB, 1000x540, 50:27, Jim Jones 1950s.jpg)


I've heard of the claims that the CIA and/or MKULTRA were behind Jonestown. I don't find them credible.

There's a mass of documentary evidence, as well as survivors (both ordinary residents and those who belonged to Jones' inner circle and were privy to his finances and contacts) that make clear the idea for a mass murder-suicide originated with Jones and the inspiration for the settlement originated with him.

Here's one article dispelling the author's claims in-re the Green Berets: http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=34281

If you have any questions, or want specific claims addressed, feel free.

Post last edited at


Will we receive free kool-aid at the end?


File: f88fb4713cf0110⋯.jpeg (48.48 KB, 500x341, 500:341, Jones and Larry Schacht.jpeg)


That's up to the players. Jonestown didn't have to end when it did, although Jones had spent years anticipating that he would one day "have" to kill his followers as part of some glorious revolutionary struggle in his head.


Do you hold a positive view of any aspects of Jim Jones and the People's Temple or is this just ironic?


File: 5fd68b90e32b8a4⋯.jpg (36.3 KB, 306x229, 306:229, Peoples Temple newspaper.jpg)


Jim Jones was an abusive and extremely manipulative cult leader who obviously didn't adhere to any "normal" interpretation of Marxism-Leninism and, as I said in my first post, Jonestown ended in mass murder-suicide on his orders.

You can say some good things about Jones (e.g. he helped desegregate Indiana, Peoples Temple provided lots of programs to help the poor), but the negatives clearly far outweigh the positives.

So no, I don't actually admire Jim Jones, and I don't think this thread gives any indication that I do.

The inhabitants of Jonestown were generally good people who wanted to make the best out of an inherently unworkable situation (a utopian settlement managed by an increasingly delusional and arbitrary cult leader.)

As you might guess, I don't think creating said settlement was a good idea either. When Jones' assistants solicited ties from the Cuban embassy in Guyana, its officials told them it was a bad idea to isolate themselves from society.

Here's a relatively benign example of the sort of manipulation Jones engaged in (from The Cult That Died, p. 186):

>Faith recalls a time in 1971 when [Jones] was trying to convince his flock that he was a reincarnation of Lenin. The revelation came to him while he was preaching the Christian virtues of socialism and communism. He was the Marxist messiah, the only man alive who could save the world from the evils of capitalism. . . Jones sensed some of the people in his flock had strong doubts. He took the problem to his staff and together they worked out a scenario that would prove Lenin's spirit had found a host in Jim Jones's body. The scheme involved placing Patricia Cartmell, Patty Cartmell's daughter, in the attic of the Redwood Valley church. Carrying a day's supply of food, a jug of water, and a script, she climbed a long ladder up to the attic early on morning when no one was around and waited all day.

>During the Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at

File: 03bfa48fb31708e⋯.jpg (54.32 KB, 720x487, 720:487, 5106498089v65.jpg)


Pic unrelated

I found this list of articles and essays debunking anti communist myths over on left book and thought it was pretty incredible! I figured folks over here could probably benefit from it as well.


File: 7a5dba41bb7b5ca⋯.jpg (47.24 KB, 499x328, 499:328, assembling-car.jpg)


So, something has been puzzling me so instead of asking a question directly let's do a bit of a role-play. Pop a squat in my imagination bunker and consider the following scenario:

It's current day. In 2016 shortly after trump won the election a glorious marxist revolution took place. It's now just past a year after the revolution took place. The United Soviet States of America or whatever are not currently at war with anyone. Answer this question as honestly and realistically as possible:

In this hypothetical world what is your job? How did you get it? Why do you deserve it?


File: 6c75e1f136413e7⋯.jpg (105.82 KB, 600x877, 600:877, Toward Soviet America.jpg)

I scan communist books and run a board on the website 8chan known as /marx/ which has like 10 active users and an unknown (but presumably not large) number of lurkers. I also answers questions by people 'bout Marxist history.

Communists comprise a tiny element of the population in 2016, so any reliable person would be valued. I might be placed in charge of propaganda work in certain areas (i.e. explaining to the population the policies of the communists and answering their questions), or maybe even local administrative responsibilities.

In real life the Bolsheviks staffed all sorts of positions with whatever communists they could find while trying to retain as many of the pre-revolutionary accountants, managers and whatnot as possible until a time when new cadres could learn technical and bookkeeping methods. In the meantime, communists were simply expected to learn "on the job" how to oversee dozens of factories or organize distribution of consumer goods or how to raise an army or whatever other practical task.

Once the initial revolutionary period is over, I'd probably end up being involved in a state publishing house or party school or something. Ideally I'd help write textbooks on subjects like Marxism-Leninism, the history of the American communist and workers' movement, etc.

Post last edited at



I'd love reading that book.


File: 452b865b7325976⋯.jpg (102.95 KB, 1080x1080, 1:1, Foster Ford 1932.jpg)


It's online: https://archive.org/details/towardsovietamer00fostrich

It's actually fairly well known since in the 1940s-60s anti-communists selectively quoted from it to "prove" that the CPUSA was hellbent on starting a revolution anytime, anywhere.

This is how Foster himself assessed the work a decade later: "I have long since criticized this work on the grounds—first, that it contains many incorrect formulations, and second, that the book in general no longer corresponds to the present political situation and to our policies. We do not circulate this and other outdated and often unsatisfactorily written American books, pamphlets, and articles on Communism." (In Defense of the Communist Party and the Indicted Leaders, 1949, p. 11.)

That being said, it is still of some historical interest as a prime example of the CPUSA's "Third Period" rhetoric.

File: 7b306ed442e39a8⋯.png (139.3 KB, 710x549, 710:549, mao pepetung.png)


What were the differences between Maoist China and Stalinist USSR? Did China ever have the same kind of planned economy as the USSR did? Was China more or less democratic than the USSR at this time?

I wanna know more about Mao era China because a lot of people (Maoists mainly) believe China achieved a more "advanced" socialist society than the USSR, but I very rarely hear anybody talk about the specifics of this society

4 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


File: c0a1224cccf3914⋯.jpg (566.76 KB, 1920x2560, 3:4, hooray.jpg)

I'm actually getting 1987 Chinese book in the mail aptly titled "China's Socialist Economy: An Outline History (1949-1984)" which I'll scan and put online once it arrives.



Your scans always have a pretty good quality. What scanner do you use? Does it take you long to scan an entire book?


File: 46b722f17c47e7e⋯.jpg (95.23 KB, 580x398, 290:199, We devote our greatest ste….jpg)


I use a Canon MG8220 printer, which doubles as a scanner.

It takes me less than an hour to scan a book that's 300 pages.


File: 67fc13657009201⋯.jpg (53.39 KB, 512x448, 8:7, Deng.jpg)


File: 4e9f006ec964587⋯.jpg (84.38 KB, 508x508, 1:1, tx_7bsUA.jpg)



File: af5966ccaa004a8⋯.jpg (37.62 KB, 320x315, 64:63, IMG_20171124_203113_864.jpg)


Wanted to learn more about Socialist Mozambique and Samora Machel, any book recommendations?

8 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.



The guy is an international symbol. He promoted revolution all over the globe. He called for "two, three, many Vietnams" against American imperialism. There is no basis whatsoever for claiming he was some sort of Cuban chauvinist, much less xenophobe.

There are attempts by reactionaries to quote Che out of context but that is handled here http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2013/apr/17/marco-rubio/did-che-guevara-write-extensively-about-superiorit/




>Guevara’s words in The Motorcycle Diaries were highly critical of the blacks he came across in that Caracas neighborhood, and he placed them beneath Europeans.



Yes, then he dropped such views and became a revolutionary. He would later work side-by-side with Africans struggling against imperialism in the Congo.

It is no different from Marx as a young man opposing communists and advocating violence against them.



>It is no different from Marx as a young man opposing communists and advocating violence against them.

False and there wasn't any communist party you dirty Brezhnevite.


File: 0e244712d761216⋯.jpg (153.49 KB, 1013x451, 1013:451, Young Marx.jpg)


The term "communist" long predated Marx and he wrote at length about the many different self-styled communist groups that existed in the 1830s-40s.

Dawaldo is correct. This is Marx writing in 1842 (from Marx and Engels, Collected Works Vol. 1, pp. 220-221):

>The Rheinische Zeitung [Marx is writing this as its editor], which does not admit that communist ideas in their present form possess even theoretical reality, and therefore can still less desire their practical realisation, or even consider it possible, will subject these ideas to thoroughgoing criticism. . . We are firmly convinced that the real danger lies not in practical attempts, but in the theoretical elaboration of communist ideas, for practical attempts, even mass attempts, can be answered by cannon as soon as they become dangerous, whereas ideas, which have conquered our intellect and taken possession of our minds, ideas to which reason has fettered our conscience, are chains from which one cannot free oneself without a broken heart; they are demons which human beings can vanquish only by submitting to them.

File: feb39d8f8e89a42⋯.png (260.18 KB, 736x593, 736:593, Screen Shot 2017-12-13 at ….png)

File: 3013937dda4d7c1⋯.png (110.31 KB, 403x599, 403:599, Screen Shot 2017-12-13 at ….png)


>Big shot CEO who lost his legs needs to go to a meeting that will increase the profit of his business

>Needs a nurse to wheel him to these meetings

>Pays the nurse sightly above the average nurses get, even tho he gets paid a lot more from theses meetings

Why do you commies have a problem with this?

Be me

>Ask a leftypol anon this

<He saids it's wrong, and that she should be paid more

>I disagree with him, saying that she isn't doing a noteworth job, that anybody else can do

<He says that the nurse should tell him to pay more, otherwise the nurse will leave

>I point out how the CEO can easily say no, and hire a new nurse who isn't gonna paid more than what is deserved

<He says that's what's wrong with capitalism, that we can easily replace people for jobs

>I ask him why he thinks being forced to stay with one employee would be good, because I only see problems of employees unjustly taking advantage of this system

>Then thread becomes archored, promising to me, that he won't be able to see or respond to the post

Can you explain his reasoning to me, and how this system of not being able to hire someone better fitted for a job, is wrong?

Last question that really has nothing to do with any of this. I'm planing to do a bait and switch on pol, tricking them into reading a book called West of Eden. I want to know your thoughts on this, and how best to word this question?

Also got banned for 13 weeks, caused a mod fight, and someone is staying up all night.

2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



The point of socialism is to not hire people in the first place.



Yes I get that, but I disagree with your belief that employing people is bad.


Under capitalism it really doesn't matter. If she's amenable to the wage he pays for this service, it's whatever. As people say--there is no ethical consumption under capitalism.

Socialists/Marxists care mostly about who owns the means of production and what they do with that. If I have enough money to pay someone to provide a one-off service, that is different from me owning money-making property or exploiting peoples' labor on a mass scale as I amass more wealth and capital.

You could nitpick this particular situation that you have posed, but at that point you'd just be jerking off to dissecting minutiae a la discussing the value of productive vs unproductive labor. http://www.marxist.com/unproductive-labour1981.htm

From the link: "If I make beds in a capitalist’s mansion, my labour is unproductive. If I work in a Holiday Inn making beds my labour is productive, since the capitalist sells my services for a profit."

By wheeling him to the meetings this nurse is doing unproductive labor because it's not generating a profit for the capitalist, it's just providing him a service.

If instead he was employing this nurse to wheel someone else to meetings and charging that person to have a nurse wheel them around, and then collecting profit off of *that* you would have the kind of relationship that socialists are generally more concerned with.



Because employment implies the existence of private property.



>Why do you commies have a problem with this?

There's nothing necessarily wrong with that. I'm not a fan of that sort of thing myself, but there's no surplus extraction going on here, even if he pays the nurse less than the theoretical value of her labour.

File: 4bc4c39ee0d0f63⋯.jpg (19.15 KB, 397x296, 397:296, 7b503342036ce06c00ef8c83d9….jpg)


Of all the Socialist countries during the Cold War, which one derived the most benefit from the system? Compare the state of the country before they chose Socialism to their current state or the state right before they discarded it.

4 posts omitted. Click reply to view.





That's what the NEP was


China, went from shithole filled with nationalist retards in the cities and really poor people in villages to an industrial power (Mao era, fuck Deng)


File: 5fe1d87320052f8⋯.jpg (55.38 KB, 436x492, 109:123, Vietnamese stamps praising….jpg)

All of them.

I'm serious, even in Romania there's some nostalgia for Ceaușescu, not because he was a great guy but because capitalism sucks that bad.

The only country you can say was unambiguously worse off under a "socialist" government compared to what existed before was Cambodia under Pol Pot. And even then, the Vietnamese helped Cambodian communists overthrow him in favor of a socialist-oriented government that was certainly a major step up from Khmer Rouge rule.


As a Yugoslav, I think we benefitted pretty massively from it. Even with today's push towards neoliberalism, the right-wing still can't destroy every stride in working conditions and progressive policies without a massive backlash, and all of those strides are inherited from socialism.

Delete Post [ ]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
| Catalog | Nerve Center | Cancer
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 4am / ashleyj / baphomet / dempart / doomer / leftpol / mde / vtest ]