[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / arepa / d / general / had / mde / miku / sonyeon / vichan ]

# Catalog (/marx/)

September 2018 - 8chan Transparency Report
Sort by: Image size:
R: 81 / I: 34 / P: 1 [R] [G] [-]

Hello, I am the new leader of /marx/.

I will continue the status quo: this board is for those who identify as Marxist-Leninist in some form, whether they uphold or otherwise identify with the Stalin-era USSR, the post-Stalin era, China under Mao, Albania under Hoxha, Cuba, the DPRK or whatever. Non-MLs are allowed to ask questions and the like.

I have a forum with a political forum area for registered users (although the forum itself is for forum games users think up and run.) If you want to get in private contact with me via PM, or if you just want to use the political forum area for whatever, feel free: http://eregime.org/index.php?act=idx

R: 29 / I: 7 / P: 1 [R] [G] [-]

As the title says. I figure a general "ask me questions" thread is good. Can be questions about socialism, US history, the Marxist position on religion, or whatever else.

R: 677 / I: 214 / P: 1 [R] [G] [-]

If you have a question about Soviet history or about specific policies enacted in the USSR, feel free to ask them here.

R: 180 / I: 78 / P: 1 [R] [G] [-]

R: 17 / I: 6 / P: 1 [R] [G] [-]

EU Imperialism + Japanese imperialism

Can anyone give me any good information on how EU and Japanese imperialism today? There's thousands of books on US imperialism and recently Tony Norfield even made the effort to write a book on modern British imperialism but almost nothing in-depth on the two major players in the West bloc: the EU nations and Japan.

Also, I don't know if anyone here considers South Korea imperialist but if you have any information on that I would appreciate it. I know about some of the nasty things they did in Vietnam plus buying up former Soviet/East bloc assets at firesale prices post-1992 but not much more.

R: 21 / I: 1 / P: 1 [R] [G] [-]

Questions about China today and in the past

R: 82 / I: 42 / P: 1 [R] [G] [-]

"Jewish Bolshevism"

How does /marx/ respond to the talking point of the Nazis whenever talking about Marxism as some "Jewish conspiracy", then citing that the Soviet Union's government officials was made up of 95% jews. They often like to double down on Trotsky as well for some reason even though he was purged from the party thanks to Stalin. What is the official /marx/ist response to "Jewish Bolshevism" which Nazis often like to cite as anything to the left of Adolf Hitler, including moderate liberalism.

R: 751 / I: 78 / P: 1 [R] [G] [-]

As the title says. I figure a general "ask me questions" thread is good. Can be questions about socialism, US history, the Marxist position on religion, or whatever else.

R: 10 / I: 1 / P: 1 [R] [G] [-]

Juche/DPRK

Non-ML here, what are your thoughts on the Juche ideology?

Do you think it needs improvement? Do you like it? Etc., etc.

R: 16 / I: 1 / P: 1 [R] [G] [-]

The Left is Dead, Long Live the Left

https://platypus1917.org/

There's a chapter opening up in my town and I'm wondering if it would be something worthwhile.

From the Platypus website:

>In the face of the catastrophic past and present, the first task for the reconstitution of a Marxian Left as an emancipatory force is to recognize the reasons for the historical failure of Marxism and to clarify the necessity of a Marxian Left for the present and future. — If the Left is to change the world, it must first transform itself!

>Platypus is concerned with exploring the improbable but not impossible tasks and project of the reemergence of a critical Left with emancipatory social intent. We look forward to making a critical but vital contribution towards a possible “return to Marx” for the potential reinvigoration of the Left in coming years. We invite and welcome those who wish to share in and contribute to this project.

And this is the reading list for the first session:

-- Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On the Social Contract (1762)

• Max Horkheimer, "The little man and the philosophy of freedom" (1926–31)

• epigraphs on modern history and freedom by James Miller (on Jean-Jacques Rousseau), Louis Menand (on Edmund Wilson), Karl Marx, on "becoming" (from the Grundrisse, 1857–58), and Peter Preuss (on Nietzsche)

+ Rainer Maria Rilke, "Archaic Torso of Apollo" (1908)

+ Robert Pippin, "On Critical Theory" (2004)

+ Being and becoming (freedom in transformation) chart of terms

• Chris Cutrone, "Capital in history" (2008 https://platypus1917.org/2008/10/01/capital-in-history-the-need-for-a-marxian-philosophy-of-history-of-the-left/#_head)

+ Capital in history timeline and chart of terms

+ video of Communist University 2011 London presentation

• Cutrone, "The Marxist hypothesis" (2010 https://platypus1917.org/2010/11/06/the-marxist-hypothesis-a-response-to-alain-badous-communist-hypothesis/)

• Cutrone, “Class consciousness (from a Marxist persective) today” https://platypus1917.org/2012/11/01/class-consciousness-from-a-marxist-perspective-today/

+ G.M. Tamas, "Telling the truth about class" [HTML] (2007)

-------------------

The ones with a dot are the center of discussion, while the + are supplementary material.

R: 4 / I: 2 / P: 1 [R] [G] [-]

Hi /marx/

Made this fundraiser to help contribute to Ismail's glorious archive of books. It's a good thing he's doing and we should help him out. If you have suggestions or thoughts, that's good too.

https://www.gofundme.com/socialist-book-archive

If you want to contribute, or share around, that'd be great.

R: 64 / I: 22 / P: 1 [R] [G] [-]

Marxism-Leninism on homosexuality

Let's discuss the Marxist-Leninist view on homosexuality and associated forms of gender identity. What should it be? Should Leninists even concern themselves with it? Were the leaders of the past wrong on sexual matters I sort of doubt this?

Gearoid O Colmain wrote an interesting but terribly eclectic series on this subject:

http://ahtribune.com/in-depth/1042-marx-and-engels.html

http://ahtribune.com/in-depth/1165-sexual-revolution.html

http://ahtribune.com/human-rights/1103-lgbt-child-abuse.html

http://ahtribune.com/history/1027-homo-sovieticus.html

For the common view, this Stalin society represents the mainstream view among most Leninists online: http://www.stalinsociety.org/2015/04/08/homosexuality-in-the-ussr/

Personally, I no longer believe that anyone is born gay as LGBT lobbies claim or that its an unchangeable preference. I also do not believe that trans surgery and hormone therapy is medically advisable. But I am not against these people as people; nor am I particularly moralistic about it even though I no longer believe in the ideology justifying their practices. What do you comrades think?

R: 99 / I: 20 / P: 1 [R] [G] [-]

/kapital/

Seeming as /leftypol/ is useless for the this kind of thread, this will be the designated Capital reading thread. The gist is that people new to Marx, like me, will be able to ask here questions specifically regarding the volumes of Capital.

Starting on page 63 (in the PDF arranged by marxists.org), I run into this long and confusing paragraph:

>In a given country there take place every day at the same time, but in different localities, numerous one-sided metamorphoses of commodities, or, in other words, numerous sales and numerous purchases. The commodities are equated beforehand in imagination, by their prices, to definite quantities of money.

So far so good.

>And since, in the form of circulation now under consideration, money and commodities always come bodily face to face, one at the positive pole of purchase, the other at the negative pole of sale,

>it is clear that the amount of the means of circulation required, is determined beforehand by the sum of the prices of all these commodities. As a matter of fact, the money in reality represents the quantity or sum of gold ideally expressed beforehand by the sum of the prices of the commodities. The equality of these two sums is therefore self-evident.

What exactly did he mean by "determined beforehand" and "ideally"? As some platonic sum of prices that should be if it's converted to money or the literal equality of value of the the amount of prices to the circulating currency? Judging by the paragraph on the next page I'm inclined to think of the former.

>We know, however, that, the values of commodities remaining constant, their prices vary with the value of gold (the material of money), rising in proportion as it falls, and falling in proportion as it rises. Now if, in consequence of such a rise or fall in the value of gold, the sum of the prices of commodities fall or rise, the quantity of money in currency must fall or rise to the same extent.

>The change in the quantity of the circulating medium is, in this case, it is true, caused by the money itself, yet not in virtue of its function as a medium of circulation, but of its function as a measure of value.

If I understand this correctly, Marx is saying that more money has entered (or "left") the economy due to its value falling/raising, which happens in this case because of easier/harder mined gold and therefore larger/smaller quantity. Correct?

>First, the price of the commodities varies inversely as the value of the money, and then the quantity of the medium of circulation varies directly as the price of the commodities.

>Exactly the same thing would happen if, for instance, instead of the value of gold falling, gold were replaced by silver as the measure of value, or if, instead of the value of silver rising, gold were to thrust silver out from being the measure of value.

>In the one case, more silver would be current than gold was before; in the other case, less gold would be current than silver was before.

How do these 3 quotes come fall in together? This specific part has been cracking my skull for the past few days.

>In each case the value of the material of money, i.e., the value of the commodity that serves as the measure of value, would have undergone a change, and therefore so, too, would the prices of commodities which express their values in money, and so, too, would the quantity of money current whose function it is to realise those prices. We have already seen, that the sphere of circulation has an opening through which gold (or the material of money generally) enters into it as a commodity with a given value.

>Hence, when money enters on its functions as a measure of value, when it expresses prices, its value is already determined. If now its value fall, this fact is first evidenced by a change in the prices of those commodities that are directly bartered for the precious metals at the sources of their production. The greater part of all other commodities, especially in the imperfectly developed stages of civil society, will continue for a long time to be estimated by the former antiquated and illusory value of the measure of value.

This seems fairly straightforward to me. Gold has pre-established value before it is accepted as a currency, any change in that value creates a chain reaction in the entire economy.

1/2

R: 25 / I: 2 / P: 1 [R] [G] [-]

>Shit on Christians

>Everyone joins in on ragging on dumb shit Evangelicals, Mormons, Catholics believe.

>Shit on Islam

>Awkward looks, people nervously chuckle, find out I'm suspended from the party a few days later.

How in fuck did Islam of all religions, arguably the most reactionary religion on earth, become such a fucking sacred cow for a huge portion of the left?

R: 0 / I: 0 / P: 2 [R] [G] [-]

Feminism and Marxism

>(1) At the center of this critique is the argument that Marx’s analysis of capitalism has been hampered by its almost exclusive focus on commodity production and its blindness to the significance of women’s unpaid reproductive work and the sexual division of labor in capitalist accumulation. (2) For ignoring this work has limited Marx’s understanding of the mechanisms perpetuating the exploitation of labor, and led him to assume that capitalist development is both inevitable and progressive, on the assumption that scarcity is an obstacle to human selfdetermination, but capital’s expansion of the forces of production, through large scale industrialization, would in time lead to its transcendence. Marx had apparently second thoughts on this matter in the later years of his life. As for us, a century and a half after the publication of Capital, we must challenge this view for at least three reasons.

Thoughts on this paper?

R: 3 / I: 1 / P: 2 [R] [G] [-]

Cooperation vs Competition

What creates better stuff, a competitive environment or a cooperative environment?

How does socialism facilitate either one of them better than capitalism?

Is the whole cooperation/competition thing a false dichotomy? Can you have both at once?

Is it human nature to be cooperative or competitive or both?

Can we banish the myth of socialism not working because of human competitiveness once and for all?

R: 15 / I: 1 / P: 2 [R] [G] [-]

Can Any of You Justify This?

>We're not coming for your toothbrush, silly fash. We're coming for the private property being kept away from the people.

Here's a list of things that are considered private property in the normal world:

>My house

>My car

>My money

>My personal possessions

>My overall material wealth

>My automated manufacturing plant that i built from the ground up

>My investments

And you want to take these things away from me for what again? I'm really looking for an intellectual discussion.

Protip: Telling me to read marxist books is the equivalent of /pol/ telling you to read siege. So spill your thoughts and convictions.

R: 2 / I: 0 / P: 2 [R] [G] [-]

Planning to create a study group for Capital book 1 and figured it be best to ask for advice before failing fantastically. I've never before held in a study group but for what it's worth I've organised political work and read chapter 1, Engels reviews of capital where he explains the basics of a commodity and "Reading Capital Politically" by Harry Cleaver.

R: 7 / I: 1 / P: 2 [R] [G] [-]

"Power to the people"

Yet, any form of Marxism requires a totalitarian state..

R: 4 / I: 2 / P: 2 [R] [G] [-]

LMAO are you guys for real?

R: 50 / I: 12 / P: 2 [R] [G] [-]

/DPRK/

hello Marx, I tried to find out what is going on in DPRK, I know most of the media showing about is 10/10 fake propaganda, but what happened there? how is the situations?

I mean

>it still socialist state?

>the party there still marxist-leninst one?

>what is """juche""" - """self reliance""" and can we consider it as a development for the Marxist-leninist ideology?

thanks /marx/

R: 127 / I: 14 / P: 2 [R] [G] [-]

I'm looking for help with a Marxist-Leninist critque of the Antifa movement. Here are my points:

Fascism is not a beast that exists outside of Capitalism, as they seem to allege, it is Capitalism.

Many Antifa seem to buy into Russiagate.

This is effectively a call for a united front with the Democratic Party, NATO and the FBI.

Is U.S. capitalism in decay or crisis - No.

Does the Bougeoisie want the "Alt-Right" - No.

They want an American version of Justin Trudeau or Emmanuel Macron.

The favored Bourgeois ideology is still neo-liberalism.

What I am not looking for:

If anybody could help with fleshing out these points, that would be great.

R: 3 / I: 1 / P: 2 [R] [G] [-]

My professor's critique of Marxism

So my professor plans on bringing up Marxism next class and critiquing it with this powerpoint slide:

What would y'all respond to these criticisms with?

R: 3 / I: 0 / P: 2 [R] [G] [-]

A question I have

Why do you think the folks on /leftypol/ are so fucking vocal and "smart", but then we usually find out that the people there never read a damn thing from Marx or Engels or anyone really.

WTF is up with such "leftists"???

R: 15 / I: 0 / P: 2 [R] [G] [-]

"Dictatorship of the Proletariat"

I know that this term is pretty central to Marxism and has been in use for over a century now, but does anyone else think that the use of the term DOTP is counterproductive, especially in less class-conscious countries such as the United States? Thinking back to my ignorant conceptions of Marxism before I actually dove into theory, the concept of the DOTP in my mind instantly evoked thoughts of anti-communist propaganda (totalitarian states, mass-killings, etc). Surely my own preconceived notions of the DOTP are not unique to myself and are more common in those ignorant of what Marxism really is at large. Wouldn't a term such as "proletarian democracy" or "worker's democracy" have better results and not have people's brains shut off as soon as they hear dictatorship? I'm not suggesting that the term DOTP is even inaccurate, it obviously means to anyone familiar with Marxism the proletariat organized as the ruling class and not some sort of quasi-fascist totalitarian state like Americans seem to conceive of it as. Thoughts? Are there any benefits of using one term over another when debating or trying to convince people in real life?

Only posting this here because I assume I would get higher quality responses / serious answers

R: 1 / I: 0 / P: 2 [R] [G] [-]

>"pss"

>"Hey, Anon, have you fixed the Feldman–Mahalanobis model yet? Is the only broken piece to solve Marx economic calculation problem"

<               λₖβₖ + λ𝒸β𝒸

<Yₜ = Y₀ { 1+ α₀ ------------------ [(1 + λₖβₖ)ᵗ -1]}

<                  λₖβₖ

>"No? Alright I'll check on you later"

R: 3 / I: 0 / P: 2 [R] [G] [-]

Bakunin was (eventually) a materialist and a dialectician, yet his conclusions are in complete opposite to those of Marx. How do you go wrong about materialist analysis?

R: 4 / I: 0 / P: 2 [R] [G] [-]

Just a few questions for fellow /marx/ists, especially Americans

>1) What do you think Marxists are currently doing wrong in the United States? What do you think they're doing right?

>3) In applying Marxism to American conditions, what are the most important things to focus on? (e.g. such as Central American migrants)

>2) Are there any good (from your view) Marxist / non-opportunist socialist parties in the United States?

>3) Do you think it is worth it, as a Marxist, to engage in local politics / run for local positions such as mayor / city councilor or would one's time better be spent trying to raise class consciousness, etc?

>4) How militant should American Marxists be, especially for a smaller group?

The only reason I ask these is because I've been toying with the idea of creating a party within the next few years. I'm moving to a bigger university next year so I was planning on checking out if genuine Marxists have any actual presence there and seeing if they do anything of worth or if they can be pushed to do anything. For over a year I've been telling myself I need to do something to help the cause instead of just sitting on my ass. I recognize I have to nail my theory down before getting into this stuff so it's been pretty much constant theory reading for me for months now.

R: 2 / I: 0 / P: 2 [R] [G] [-]

Hey everyone,

I created a board called /ecopol/ in order to facilitate discuss between the left and the right on ecological issues… if anyone here is ecosocialist, anprim, etc, please check it out!

R: 6 / I: 0 / P: 3 [R] [G] [-]

Coexisting

If after revolution, both anarchists and Marxists make functioning societies, would it be possible to coexist?

R: 6 / I: 1 / P: 3 [R] [G] [-]

Continuity and rupture

Could someone briefly explain to me how (according to Maoists) Maoism/MLM is a "rupture" from Marxism-Leninism, and not just Marxism-Leninism with some extra stuff?

R: 6 / I: 0 / P: 3 [R] [G] [-]

The privatization of knowledge

Take a company like microsoft for example and focus on their production of software. I understand that programmers are a sort of labor aristocracy in which they are paid high salaries but have little to no say in independent projects (especially nowadays, what with Google and the likes removing their 20% time policy) or control over the means of production.

I also understand that their labor creates value in the exact same way that a factory laborer does in terms of necessary labor time for creating a commodity.

But what exactly is this commodity? It's considered intellectual property, and there is a large debate going on over whether it's okay that China pirates much of this knowledge for their own use of commodity production.

Is this a correct assessment of how the privatization of knowledge works, and is that how the value is created for intangibles like software? Knowledge is another form of the commons it seems to me, and this increasing intellectual property to expensive commodity production just seems like a new way of abusing the commons to create profit.

Obviously this is a product of technological growth, but can the seeds of this exploitation of the commons of knowledge be found in economies from the early 20th or 19th centuries? How do patents for things like machines play into this concept?

R: 19 / I: 3 / P: 3 [R] [G] [-]

Dialectics

I've read the first volume of Capital and throughout the entire thing there was not one mention of a dialectical process save for a few mentions of "contradictions" and "negation of the negation" at the very end of the book. What exactly is dialectics in the sense that Marx (not Stalin!) uses and how can one use it to analyze a situation? Theses, antitheses, contradictions, negations... I have no idea what all of this is supposed to mean except some vague understanding, like that things exist only in contrast to other things, but that seems too idealistic to me.

By analyze I mean on what scale, time span and focus (e.g. production capabilities, societal interrelations like cooperation between and rivalry between certain groups, etc) are we supposed to look at? For example, the expropriation of the peasants in England or the Scottish clansmen, Marx describes there a historical process that was the result of a long chain of material conditions, expansion, and power historical power relations. It's coherent and consistent but I don't understand what would be "dialectical" about it.

Another thing is the supposed contradictions. I recall one of the only times (if not the only time, I don't quite remember) he calls something a contradiction is when he points out that the makers of products are not their owners. Taken in the context of the LTV it's a contradiction insofar that the makers don't retain the full value of their product, but, again, I don't see how it's "dialectical" in any meaningful way. You could just as much just call it a theft or a scam and it will retain its meaning.

I understand that Marx wouldn't want to use Hegelian language to not confuse the reader any further in an already difficult book, and it's clear his reasoning is dialectical (and obviously materialist) so it's fair to say Chomsky and the like are incorrect to say that Marx "didn't use dialectics", but is it really necessary to understand dialectics in order to understand Marx? He does a good job in explaining the process of capital and the historical development of production without formulating any dialectical "equations" (or whatever would be appropriate).

R: 6 / I: 1 / P: 3 [R] [G] [-]

How to get into power

I've made a few steps for how to gain power:

1. Make loads of propagandist. Make videos, Posters, Print out fucktons of leaflets, etc. Do not stop for whatever reason, the propaganda must flow. Start by putting up a poster in A nearby billboard for example. Do not hold back.

2. Make a political party

Make a shitty political party and invite your friends. Continue the stream of propoganda, but orientate it towards this party

3. Merge with larger parties.

Merge with other tiny communist parties. Gain more members, and merge your ideologies. Combat Sectarianism. Keep on merging till you have a reasonably big party

4. Get shit done

Make homeless shelters, give money to charity, give free first aid courses. Help the proletariat and expand your cancer-like growth. Continue the propaganda stream.

Once you have a reasonably big party, stock up on supplies. Build bunkers, and plan your moves. Purge Infilitrators, continue the spread of propoganda and expand your Paramilitary.

6. Revolution

Begin by enciting riots. Get well-placed allies in the military to enact your plans, And Engage in open fighting with the establishment. Learn strategy, and Build more bunkers to hide you and your party from Bombers.

R: 8 / I: 2 / P: 3 [R] [G] [-]

What is the issue with technocracy?

R: 2 / I: 0 / P: 3 [R] [G] [-]

How is Marxism scientific?

R: 4 / I: 1 / P: 3 [R] [G] [-]

Marx was gay

R: 12 / I: 0 / P: 3 [R] [G] [-]

What are some good (i.e. not bourgeois) books on socialist Cuba? Cuban revolution, early years of Castro's rule, economic development prior and after the dissolution of the USSR, etc.

R: 13 / I: 10 / P: 3 [R] [G] [-]

Some good "redpills". This a pretty solid infigraphic?

I still have pro-Trump friends on social media, some keep up with this. Most dont.

R: 46 / I: 9 / P: 3 [R] [G] [-]

/leftypol/ BO here

I want more ML posters from /leftypol/ to have real conversations on /marx/ instead of getting constantly disrupted by anticommunist trolls. And I want them to be more organized and effective in promoting Marxism-Leninism and combating anticommunism when they do post on /leftypol/. That is, I think it is antithetical to Marxism Leninism for posters to isolate themselves here without propagandizing to /leftypol/ posters somehow (weekly newsletter/communique, embassy, agitation memes, or something). See:

>>>/leftypol/2175560

Please let me know what you think. I could make a cycle thread, or do something else if you have another suggestion.

There's only one real condition to my proposal, which is that I want to know that /marx/ doesn't allow posters here to promote global warming denial, transphobia/homophobia, or Strasserism/Nazbol (that includes the "turn back all refugees" attitude I've seen from a couple self-declared ML posters on /leftypol/). There are impostor MLs who promote these things, and I don't know whether or not /marx/ has banned them. Please let me know what you think.

R: 4 / I: 0 / P: 3 [R] [G] [-]

Does Marx actually write anything against markets or in favour of central planning?

If not, who came up with the idea that Marxism is big government?

R: 18 / I: 6 / P: 3 [R] [G] [-]

Revisionism

Can someone explain to me why revisionism is bad? Wasn't marx's whole point that political economic systems of organization become out of date and therefore need constant maintenance and updates in order to bring society's organization into "harmony" with reality? It seems to me that when the Soviets took power, they were in a life and death situation and adopted "War Communism", but, perhaps later into Stalin's reign or even after Stalin, after the material conditions of Russia changed, the Soviet system failed to update. Would pragmatic updates to socialism to maximize industrial and economic growth be considered revisionism? I'm not even sure exactly what the means in an ML context, tbh

R: 11 / I: 3 / P: 3 [R] [G] [-]

Afro-Marxism

I realized that this series of conflicts is key to understanding the current mode of capitalism (War Capitalism, Disaster Capitalism, Neo-Colonialism, Late Capitalism, or whatever you want to call it). I don't even know where to begin as this conflict is one of those places in history westerners rarely visit.

I'm looking for an introduction to African Marxism and the wars the United States, Europe, and their enemies in order to control the fate of the continent.

R: 22 / I: 9 / P: 3 [R] [G] [-]

If Marxism was such a success why did the Bolsheviks have to murder 66 million Russian Christians??? Who was the Bolsheviks all JEWS. Who sponsors all the wars for the last 200 years the Rothschilds. They also use communism to destroy countries. Look at Venezuela then the thieves are sent in from big oil to steal their oil for the Rothschilds. You communist idiots just keep working for the richest criminal on earth.

R: 10 / I: 3 / P: 4 [R] [G] [-]

How socialist were the Arab Socialists? Give me the rundown on Nasser, Ben Bella, Boumediene, Gaddafi, Hussein and the Assad family.

R: 4 / I: 0 / P: 4 [R] [G] [-]

In Defense of the Boomer

"A specter is haunting millennials: the specter of the Baby Boom." - me

I’ve noticed an increasing distain among left-wing Millennials for Baby Boomers – that is, the generation of Americans who were born after the Second World War and before the mid-60s. Go to “leftbook” or /leftypol/ or Weird Twitter or whatever other ostensibly radical community you feel like subjecting yourself to and you’ll discover that there’s a large contingent of young (mostly Millenial, though the nature of these communities makes it hard to know everyone’s ages)socialists who don’t like Boomers. They don’t like their politics, they don’t like their rhetoric, and they certainly don’t like how Boomers are (apparently) preventing the Revolution from overthrowing the American Empire.

Now, I’ll get this out of the way: yes, the current President of the United States is a Boomer, as were the three before him. The majority of US congressmen are Boomers. Five of the current Supreme Court Justices are Boomers. Boomers are also overrepresented among Fortune 500 CEOs, media clerks, and pretty much every other public face that a young radical can point at and say “that’s The Man.”

But Boomers are not the oppressing class. They’re not a class at all; they’re bourgeois, petty bourgeois, proletarian, and lumpenproletarian. There are plenty of Boomer workers being exploited by their Gen X or even Millennial employers right now.

Now, one might argue that, although Boomers (as a whole) are not the enemy, anti-Boomer sentiment nonetheless taps into radical consciousness; that is, the opposition to Boomers is a clumsy but well-intentioned approximation of opposition to the Bourgeoisie. There are certainly anti-Boomer memes that reflect this. However, the majority of the anti-Boomer sentiment I’ve seen doesn’t come from the left; many of the most vocal opponent of Boomers are open reactionaries who blame Boomers not for perpetuating capitalism but for allowing non-Whites into the United States, promoting “degeneracy,” and standing in the way of Donald Trump. And besides them, plenty of anti-Boomer types don’t seem too political at all; look at any 4chan board to see Boomers despised for their tastes in art, their sense of humor, and even their daily routines. At this rate I wouldn’t be surprised to see anti-Boomer memes on CNN next year. Boomers aren’t criticized for being reactionary; they’re criticized for whatever (perceived) social ill one wishes to ascribe to them.

R: 4 / I: 0 / P: 4 [R] [G] [-]

Primers to Capital Vol. I

I recently purchased a copy of Capital, Vol. I. What books or points of theory would you say are absolutely essential to understanding it?

Here's a list of my consumption of theory, for reference:

Woodfin, "Introducing Marxism"

(hour-long synopsis of) Marx, "Wage Labour and Capital"

Marx & Engels, "Manifesto of the Communist Party"

Engels, "On Authority"

Kropotkin, "The Conquest of Bread" (up to ch. 4)

(three years of extremely-online Internet anarchism)

Lenin, "The State and Revolution" (up to ch. 2)

Trotsky, "The ABCs of Dialectics"

Stalin, "The Foundations of Leninism"

Mao, "A Single Spark Can Start a Prairie Fire"

Mao, "Oppose Book Worship"

Zizek, "First as Tragedy, Then as Farce"

(half of TheFinnishBolshevik channel & half of the Comrade Hakim channel on YouTube — ik they're not directly theory per se but,)

R: 6 / I: 0 / P: 4 [R] [G] [-]

What did Marx mean by this?

Seems like he really was anti-Semitic.

R: 4 / I: 0 / P: 4 [R] [G] [-]

Some of us are creating an experimental board on 8chan along democratic centralist lines. We are currently recruiting members.

Regards.

>>>/netcom/

R: 1 / I: 0 / P: 4 [R] [G] [-]

But not the present.

Why is it that Socialists nowadays feel so compelled to follow one specific tendency of Socialism, when all of these were a product of their respective Revolutions?

For example, the immediate period following 1917, and onwards was marked by extensive experimentation. First with the establishment of directly Democratic Worker's councils, which were then scrapped due to the severely underdeveloped state of Russian industry, leading to the adoption of the NEP, and only after that what we now know as the Soviet, or Marxist-Leninist "model" of Central Planning, collectivization, etc.

So it'd say that Socialists should only be keen on following specific Ideological lines on a POST Revolutionary situation, which will doubtless beget its own ideals -call it Marxism-Smithism, or whatever the fuck the future awaits. As opposed to our present time, which has dialed the fuck back out of the clock horribly, in which we should only seek to abolish the present state of things (Private property and the Market Economy).

So comrades, please. Call yourselves Socialists, Communists, Neo-Bolsheviks (Because the Bolsheviks had to adapt their establishment of Socialism in response to their Material conditions). And not some word-salad autism like Third-World DeLeonist Juche or some shit.

R: 1 / I: 0 / P: 4 [R] [G] [-]

Cockshott makes the claim in TANS that Marx, being classically educated, advocated a democratic system in line with antique Athens when he refers to a socialism operating on "radical democracy", rather than the mirror of liberal parliamentarianism which most "democratic" socialists advocate and seem to have advocated even in Marx's time. Do you believe that Marx personally envisioned systems of judiciary or even legislative sortition and referenda in socialist political economy, or an electoral politics similar to what Lenin proposed theoretically and set foundations for in the Constitution of the Soviet Union?

I ask this only out of historical curiosity, of course. I neither regard Marx's word as scripture nor do I believe his personal preferences lend credibility to one model over another.

R: 751 / I: 308 / P: 4 [R] [G] [-]

As the title says. I figure a general "ask me questions" thread is good. Can be questions about socialism, US history, the Marxist position on religion, or whatever else.

R: 16 / I: 1 / P: 4 [R] [G] [-]

Some Burning Questions

Hi, /marx/! I'm new to /marx/ (and 8chan in general) and have been a Marxist for about three years, a Leninist for about seven months. I have some questions for all on a few questions that, uh, due to their nature, I thought best to ask somewhere extremely anonymous, such as 8chan's /marx/ board.

1. What is a materialist stance rejecting or supporting """victimless""" taboo acts such as incest, nondirected slurs, or drawn child pornography? Do you believe all critique of them is based around an idealist, individualist framework, or are there other considerations?

2. What is your conception of a Marxist approach to such identity-centered issues such as ethnic and sexual oppression, and to concepts of oppression and privilege in general? What is the historical-materialist approach to, say, liberal notions of white guilt?

3. What is the proper thing to do, as a first-world socialist, in general? No matter how much theory I read, I always have a lack of knowledge for what to do, and whether I'm doing the "right thing", and whether it's effective.

4. What do you think of Dengist reforms, of Juche's deviations from Marxism-Leninism, etc.? At what point is something "no longer socialist" -- Libya, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Rojava, Chiapas, Norway, etc.? Is the question of "is a nation socialist" even the right question to ask, when considering the support or lack thereof of a nation while under late capitalism / global capitalism / neo-colonialism / imperialism? Is this all too binary, too black-and-white, almost inverse McCarthyist?

5. What is your opinion of sociocultural applications of Marxism, such as Gramsci, Adorno, Habermas, Žižek, Coffin, etc. (or even of non-Marxists in some semblance of the same orbit, such as Derrida, Foucault, and Butler)? It seems to me that Marxism encompasses almost the entirety of the social sciences, but there are some debates over whether proponents of critical theory etc. were just "armchair socialists", esp. since there appears to be a heavy amount of anti-Bolshevik rhetoric among them.

6. Why do you think Stalin and Mao received so much of the anti-Communist rhetoric? Was it simply that McCarthyist tendencies in America were only rising around that time period?

7. What is your view of postmodern and Indigenous critiques of Western academia?

9. Is left unity truly possible on an ideological level, or only on a strategical-tactical level? Is 'left unity' (implying a 'left divide') even a coherent subject, or are anarchists just Marxists with convoluted theory? Does it matter that much in the long run? (Personally, I know a few syndicalists for whom we share a surprising amount of common ideological ground.)

R: 1 / I: 0 / P: 4 [R] [G] [-]

Lang lebe die Menschheit!

Long live humanity!

Este es un hilo en el cual se celebran los valores humanos desde una visión cientificismo. Si no sabes que es el cientificismo dogmático puedes ver el siguiente documento en el cual se está escribiendo el "Manifiesto de una sociedad nueva". Estamos buscando personas de distintas visiones políticas y culturales para escribir este manifiesto. Estamos haciendo experimentos sociales (en el mundo hispano por ahora) para investigar la naturaleza humana para construir este manifiesto.

¡Participa en la construcción de una sociedad nueva!

Dies ist ein roter Faden, in dem menschliche Werte aus einer szientistischen Perspektive gefeiert werden. Wenn Sie nicht wissen, was dogmatischer Szientismus ist, können Sie das folgende Dokument sehen, in dem das "Manifest einer neuen Gesellschaft" geschrieben wird. Wir suchen Menschen mit unterschiedlichen politischen und kulturellen Visionen, um dieses Manifest zu schreiben. Wir machen soziale Experimente (in der hispanischen Welt für jetzt), um die menschliche Natur zu erforschen, um dieses Manifest zu bauen.

Beteilige dich am Aufbau einer neuen Gesellschaft!

This is a thread in which human values are celebrated from a scientistic perspective. If you do not know what dogmatic scientism is, you can see the following document in which the "Manifesto of a new society" is being written. We are looking for people of different political and cultural visions to write this manifesto. We are doing social experiments (in the Hispanic world for now) to investigate human nature to build this manifesto.

Participate in the construction of a new society!

In the subject of the mail, write: "major plan"

artmethanosx2@gmail.com

Necesitamos crear una mejor bandera…

R: 6 / I: 1 / P: 4 [R] [G] [-]

As a Marxist, how would I best respond to this repudiation of Xi Jinping Thought?

R: 6 / I: 0 / P: 4 [R] [G] [-]

principles vs strategy

Ever since I got into politics, political theory and Marxism more seriously, I've noticed that there's often a tension between thinking in terms of principles and thinking in terms of what is strategically beneficial.

For example, the question of gun control. I live in a country with pretty strict gun laws, and we simply don't have anything close to the kind of gun violence there is in the US. In my mind there is no doubt that ordinary people, children going to school, etc. in the US would be safer if there were stricter gun regulations, so my instinct is to support that kind of thing, but most radical leftists probably wouldn't agree with me because they think guns are strategically necessary for carrying out revolution. To me, supporting policies that result in unnecessary deaths of ordinary people, because of some revolution that doesn't seem to be happening any time soon, seems like a really dangerous form of LARPing.

When I was more of a social democrat kinda guy, things like this were really easy. I just supported any movement or reform that was pushing society in the direction of my principles (welfare state, less income inequality, racial and gender equality, freedom of speech, secularism, etc.). But now if you take revolution seriously, if you want to completely replace the current political and economic system, then there are all sorts of strategical considerations you have to make that might force you to compromise your principles, or take positions you wouldn't take previously.

Does anyone know what I'm talking about? Am I thinking about it all wrong? What position should Marxists take on questions like this?

(Obviously there are always strategic considerations even in completely reformist politics, but I feel like it's easier to be consistent if you view the current system as legitimate and working within it is all you do.)

R: 15 / I: 6 / P: 4 [R] [G] [-]

What are your guys' thought on Nazbol? Personally, I think it's cringy as fuck. Seems like they're mostly just edgy children who don't actually know what communism is, but relish in the controversy of the hammer+sickle and Nazi flag. Plus, are their beliefs not counter-revolutionary and authoritarian to an extreme?

R: 14 / I: 4 / P: 4 [R] [G] [-]

Any recommendations for studies, literature etc that are helpful for dismissing both anti-communist propaganda and fascist talking points?

Things that I could refer people to instead of having to digest and regurgitate the information so they can understand it.

R: 7 / I: 2 / P: 4 [R] [G] [-]

Zimbabwe

Now that the dust has settled can we finally admit that this went tits up? What actually went wrong here and how we can we stop it next time.

>hurr durr muh akshually exizting soshulizm supported Mugabe

Ok. You can take that line but by the same token China supported the coup that removed him from power. And now Zimbabwe is applying to join the British commonwealth; so much for the anti-colonial struggle.

R: 11 / I: 20 / P: 5 [R] [G] [-]

How could communism be promoted in a country such as Romania, which arguably suffered the most under the opportunism of Ceaușescu?

I ask since just recalling the good measures under him (such as free housing and healthcare, the right to a job etc.) is countered by truthful claims which mention his excesses. The palace of parliament and the cult of personality come to mind.

On top of it all, a vast majority of the (mostly older) people who speak good of him are doing it in a national-chauvinistic way.

Is there anything I could read more about the RSR? I'm going to post some nice photos from that period.

R: 10 / I: 5 / P: 5 [R] [G] [-]

Marx was redpilled on the non-white question. Are you?

R: 14 / I: 7 / P: 5 [R] [G] [-]

Don't forget to read Bordiga you retarded stalinists

R: 1 / I: 0 / P: 5 [R] [G] [-]

Venezuela

So I saw John Oliver's attempt at explaining the crisis in Venezuela. I'm gonna need you guys to help explain exactly what the fuck is going on down there.

R: 11 / I: 3 / P: 5 [R] [G] [-]

Promoting /marx/

I really like this board, it's a hub of information, and from what I've seen, it actually has more free speech than /leftypol/ and /leftpol/ - so much for "tankies" censoring dissenting opinions. The thing is, having 1-3 posts a day is just awfully slow. How can we promote /marx/? There is an awful lot of young Marxist-Leninists these days, I see them on /leftypol/, on reddit and on Discord, yet barely anybody posts here. I think we should improve that.

R: 3 / I: 2 / P: 5 [R] [G] [-]

Anti-Semitism in the USSR

>Terms such as rootless cosmopolitans, bourgeois cosmopolitans, and individuals devoid of nation or tribe continually appeared in newspaper articles. All of these were codewords for Jews and were understood as such by people at that time. 41 (One non-Jew, Aleksandr Veselovskii, was also officially consigned to the rootless.) Of the many crimes attributed to Jews/cosmopolitans in the Soviet press, the most malevolent were "groveling before the West," aiding "American imperialism," "slavish imitation of bourgeois culture," and the catch-all misdeed of "bourgeois aestheticism." Stalin's policies of anti- Westernism and anti-Semitism reinforced one another and joined together in the notion of cosmopolitanism. One of the victims of the campaign, Aleksandr Borshchagovskii, later wrote that "the epithet 'rootless cosmopolitan' was sufficiently transparent that it eliminated any doubt about the [background of] the addressee."

I tried to point to this: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1931/01/12.htm

>In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty.

But she dismissed it as 'propaganda'. She claims it is 'dog whistle language' only meant to be understood by those who are in the know.

Can one of you do a better job at refuting the Harvard article and her point about 'dog whistle language'?

R: 2 / I: 0 / P: 5 [R] [G] [-]

Simulation of the world of 1919

In June or July I intend to run a text-based, turn-based simulation set in the year 1919, in which participants join as leaders of countries, parties, rebellions, armed forces, cabinets, or particular individuals.

I doubt I'll get many people from /marx/, but the ability to reserve a role in the game will open up on April 15.

Here's the (currently pretty barren) forum area for the game: http://eregime.org/forum/5001898/

R: 4 / I: 1 / P: 5 [R] [G] [-]

Hoxhaism or Leninism

So the majority of posters on /marx/ seem to lean towards Hoxhaism as an alternative to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism or Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought, mostly because of the reactionary Three Worlds Theory proposed by Mao's right deviation and the supposed "support" for Pinochet and Mujihadeen and anything anti Soviet social imperialism, but I just want to know a Hoxhaist perspective on this document that denounces Hoxhaism as the Trotskyist and dogmatist Marxist-Leninist ideology that actually deviates from Leninism. The article is titled "Hoxhaism or Leninism" and can be accessed here: https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-5/cpml-hoxha.htm

some interesting points here.

R: 12 / I: 2 / P: 5 [R] [G] [-]

So the way I see it Germany has three Marxist-Leninist parties, the DKP, the KPD and the MLPD. I've been considering joining one of these, but I'm really unsure about it. DKP feels a lot like Eurocommunism, MLPD comes over as a sect and KPD is really small and located mostly in the east.

R: 2 / I: 1 / P: 5 [R] [G] [-]

My lib father

When I was a teenager I used to discuss politics a lot with my father. Since I moved away from home we don't get the chance to talk as often so I've started texting him articles I find interesting every now and then to get his perspective on them. Yesterday I texted him this article about american use of biological weapons during the korean war:

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/the-long-suppressed-korean-war-report-on-u-s-use-of-biological-weapons-released-at-last-20d83f5cee54

He didn't quite believe they would actually do such a thing, not because of any moral reasons, but because it would be too much of a political risk. Because the US is a democracy they wouldn't do that because it would make people mad and they can't use the same tools undemocratic regimes use to deal with bad press.

This is just one example of his liberal thinking. He sometimes admits that money clearly runs american politics, that the rich are the ones that really have power, that all american politicians are corrupt, that american politics doesn't reflect the will of the people, etc. but he still believes that there's a fundamental difference between the US and "undemocratic regimes". It's like democracy is a big on/off switch, and it doesn't matter how much the system degenerates, the US is still a democracy which means the americans would never do something truly disgusting like use biological weapons.

How do we approach liberals who are willing to criticize the US (quite strongly in some cases) but still believe that they are fundamentally the good guys in the world and should protect us from the bad guys who don't value democracy (the Russians, the Chinese, Assad, Kim Jong Un, etc.)??

My father is a very smart and reasonable guy. Discussing the crimes of the US, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, income inequality, the influence money has on politicians, etc. with him as a young teenager was one of the reasons I became interested in leftism, I think. But he has this really liberal idealist world view which is very hard to make him reconsider.

R: 4 / I: 2 / P: 5 [R] [G] [-]

question about the short period in the 1920s when the USSR employed state capitalism

A basic axiom of Marxist thought is that a society's mode of production evolves from internal contradictions thus spawning a new mode of production to govern material reality.

Now, it's well known that the capitalism stepping stone, so to speak, is a required hurdle to overcome before reaching a socialist mode of production.

My question is why was this state capitalism necessary for the USSR to employ from ~1923 until ~1928 (I believe these dates are correct)? Was it because there was still too much petty commodity production that was not ripe for socialization yet?

Were there other material factors? If so, what were they?

R: 6 / I: 3 / P: 5 [R] [G] [-]

Common discourse isn't particularly friendly to Marxism-Leninism

I don't care what common discourse dictates, considering it's composed mainly of misinformed people who don't give a damn about understanding Marxism nor Leninsim.

Anyways, I'm just beginning to read more literature on the USSR in general and I'd like if someone could provide me with the main tenants of Marxism-Leninism.

Is Vanguardism a key component?

What are common mininformations you hear, and how do you refute them?

R: 1 / I: 0 / P: 5 [R] [G] [-]

Basic question about socialism and state capitalism

It's not infrequent to spot someone in life who doesn't understand the distinction between a socialist economy and a capitalist economy.

I'm in the process of reading Marx, of course, but I cannot yet accurately differentiate between the two concepts.

For example, in discussions of China it's often brought up:

1. China is a centrally planned economy

2. China's economy exists within a market system

3. The government controls the means of production

If these facts are correct, as I assume they are based on prior knowledge (please correct me if I'm wrong), then I can't decipher whether China should be considered a state capitalist economy or a socialist one.

R: 1 / I: 1 / P: 5 [R] [G] [-]

The History of the USSR

I need a book on the history of the USSR, and I thought this would be a good place to ask.

R: 10 / I: 1 / P: 5 [R] [G] [-]

Continuity and Rupture, by J. Moufawad-Paul

Have you read this book /leftypol/? Thoughts on it?

Just finished reading it and I was pleasantly surprised. I've been sort of leaning towards ML for a while but always remained critical of (most) ML's who completely endorse the Stalin era USSR and what JMP would describe as the top-down, monolithic conception of the democratic centralist communist party. I never took Maoism seriously but this book kinda changed my perspective.

R: 1 / I: 0 / P: 6 [R] [G] [-]

For MLs, what do you think the future of Socialism looks like in First-world countries?

Even if you don't think the first-world will be the first to revolt, eventually communists will have to focus on building socialism in the (former) first-world, so how do you think it will play out?

R: 3 / I: 2 / P: 6 [R] [G] [-]

Can anyone explain to me the entire basis for Stalin's Socialism in One State/Country and how it compares and contrasts to Trotsky's view of foreign policy? If Stalin wanted socialism only in one country, then why did the soviets rapidly expand all over the place?

R: 1 / I: 0 / P: 6 [R] [G] [-]

I'm looking to get a physical copy of "Laws of Chaos: A probabilistic approach to political economy."

Can't find it on ebay.

R: 6 / I: 2 / P: 6 [R] [G] [-]

Thoughts on Plekhanov?

I've got 5 tomes of his writings, is he worth reading? What are his flaws? I'm not a communist nor have I ever read any socialist literature, but I'm going to read Marx before going over nay of his successors.

R: 4 / I: 3 / P: 6 [R] [G] [-]

On understanding "On The Jewish Question"

This piece of text seems to be too philosophical for me. Marx went into the relationship of man, the church, and the state using Hegelian philosophy. Can someone explain to me in simplify terms what he meant by the relationship?

I also don't quite understand why he equates Judaism with huckstering and pursuit of money? I think it has to do with the double meaning of the word to also mean commerce.

pic unrelated

R: 8 / I: 0 / P: 6 [R] [G] [-]

Ape Slayer and Kike Killer

Commies get the bullet too

14/88

'''Seig Fucking Heil""

R: 16 / I: 5 / P: 6 [R] [G] [-]

Questions For "Real" Socialists.

What is your stance on feminism?

R: 13 / I: 1 / P: 6 [R] [G] [-]

Sex Work During Socialist times

Howdy comrades, seen the recent efforts of liberal and non liberal media to normalize sex work I asked wondered how sex work was seen and dealt with during socialist times (no matter the country).

I always thought that socialist countries had 0 or basically non existent sex workers, a quick search on the internet revealed that I was wrong.

Do you guys know something? Can you link me something?

Also what do you think about sex work? For me is disgusting and really a symptom of capitalist decadence.

The attempt of normalizing this kind of market and calling the profession empowering is flat out fucking stupid and trivializes the experiences of people forced into it.

Don't give me that "prostitution will always exist" because Sweden, out of all places, proved you wrong. If they can find a way to make prostitution culturally unacceptable no matter the economic system they live in, under socialism sex work should be totally non existent.

Stripping is sex work too btw.

Also I'm probably asking on the wrong site seen how most of the people on chans are awkward losers who probably use prostitution themself, but hey, what the fuck, /marx/ is the best board. Maybe you will prove me wrong. I know /leftypol/ didn't

R: 1 / I: 2 / P: 6 [R] [G] [-]

Why is eastern Germany so much poorer than western Germany? Is tankie socialism bad for economic growth?

R: 3 / I: 1 / P: 6 [R] [G] [-]

Lazar Kaganovich

Thoughts on the Iron Lazar? Why does the far right consider him the most evil person ever?

R: 11 / I: 1 / P: 6 [R] [G] [-]

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?

R: 1 / I: 0 / P: 6 [R] [G] [-]

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

R: 21 / I: 7 / P: 6 [R] [G] [-]

Make Me A ML

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

R: 4 / I: 3 / P: 6 [R] [G] [-]

Questions To Fellow Extremists.

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

http://liberalists.org/principles/

R: 1 / I: 1 / P: 6 [R] [G] [-]

Destruction of the Past During Revolutions

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 ?

R: 1 / I: 1 / P: 7 [R] [G] [-]

Being a "good" communist

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

R: 46 / I: 9 / P: 7 [R] [G] [-]

Did Marx and Engels fuck each other in the ass?

R: 3 / I: 1 / P: 7 [R] [G] [-]

Visit /mayday/

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.

R: 7 / I: 1 / P: 7 [R] [G] [-]

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

R: 15 / I: 5 / P: 7 [R] [G] [-]

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.

R: 56 / I: 47 / P: 7 [R] [G] [-]

Was Tito Revisionist?

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.

R: 3 / I: 1 / P: 7 [R] [G] [-]

Climate Change

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.

R: 42 / I: 2 / P: 7 [R] [G] [-]

Currency and Historical Materialism

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?

R: 30 / I: 12 / P: 7 [R] [G] [-]

how do we get normies to like marxism-leninism ?

R: 2 / I: 0 / P: 7 [R] [G] [-]

marxism as a science

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.

R: 5 / I: 2 / P: 7 [R] [G] [-]

Marxist historians

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.

R: 6 / I: 3 / P: 7 [R] [G] [-]

Jonestown simulation

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.

R: 0 / I: 0 / P: 7 [R] [G] [-]

Hey ya'll

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.

R: 3 / I: 2 / P: 7 [R] [G] [-]

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?

R: 9 / I: 5 / P: 7 [R] [G] [-]

China (Mao era)

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

R: 13 / I: 2 / P: 8 [R] [G] [-]

Books on Socialist Mozambique

R: 7 / I: 0 / P: 8 [R] [G] [-]

Questions for "Real" Socialists.

>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

<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.

R: 9 / I: 1 / P: 8 [R] [G] [-]

Which country benefited most from Socialism?

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.

R: 3 / I: 2 / P: 8 [R] [G] [-]

How do you respond to the anarchist critique of the concept of "the withering away of the state"? Basically, they say that institutions are self perpetuating and that the state will never "abolish itself" or let itself wither away.

Now that I think about it, what is the actual reasoning behind this idea? The only argument I've heard (I think) is that the state is a tool of class domination, and therefore has no purpose when there are no classes and no class struggle. But this seems awfully naive and ignores that states are made up of real people who have gained some amount of power and privilege, and that it is in their rational self interest to hold on to and strengthen that.

I am soon done reading The Conquest of Bread (the only anarchist litterature I've read, after having read a bunch of Marx and Lenin), and while that book is utopian garbage, this question (and some other's, like the one of individual liberty for example) has made me lean more towards anarchism lately.

R: 29 / I: 23 / P: 8 [R] [G] [-]

I know that what I am about to say will sound upsetting (And that it will definitely be taken out of context), but objectively, when one looks at the history of the colonization of the Americas from a historically materialist perspective, the replacement of Indigenous pre-Class and slave societies with Euro-American capitalism was progressive and mourning what happened (As brutal is was) is pointless. The Capitalist societies that replaced them created one of the largest planned economies in the world: Wal-Mart. It will be Capitalists like these that will create the conditions that will enable us to move beyond Capitalism. Wal-Mart and Elon Musk are bringing us closer to Communism than every single Indigenist activist blogging about "decolonizing the settlers" with their quasi-Volkish notions about "the land" and "sacred lifeways" ever will. These ways of life are never returning and thinking that they can is undialectical.

So the inevitable question everybody is probably thinking is if I think they deserved what happened. I am not unsympathetic to them or their concerns, after all Marx himself said that capitalism arose "with blood dripping from its pores" while still acknowledging its historically progressive character in those times. Do I oppose holding non-Native entities to treaties they signed? No. Do I support corporate pollution of Native-inhabited lands? No. Do I oppose those who want to make their people's lives better? No. Do I oppose holding the United States and Canada responsible for atrocities like the "residential schools"? No. Do I oppose the explicit desire by many Indigenist groups to ethnically cleanse White people from America and create exclusionary ethno-states? Yes. Do I oppose the anti-materialist obscurantist beliefs that permeate the Indigenist movement? Definitely. Don't believe me? Look at these passages from a speech by Russell Means (Emphasis mine):

http://archive.is/upQgd

"When I speak of Europeans or mental Europeans, I’m not allowing for false distinctions. I’m not saying that on the one hand there are the by-products of a few thousand years of genocidal, reactionary European intellectual development which is bad; and on the other hand there is some new revolutionary intellectual development which is good. I’m referring here to the so-called theories of Marxism and anarchism and “leftism” in general. I don’t believe these theories can be separated from the rest of the European intellectual tradition. It’s really just the same old song."

"Hegel and Marx were heirs to the thinking of Newton, Descartes, Locke and Smith. Hegel finished the process of secularizing theology — and that is put in his own terms — he secularized the religious thinking through which Europe understood the universe. Then Marx put Hegel’s philosophy in terms of “materialism,” which is to say that Marx despiritualized Hegel’s work altogether. ... And this is now seen as the future revolutionary potential of Europe. Europeans may see this as revolutionary, But American Indians see it simply as still more of that same old European conflict between being and gaining. The intellectual roots of a new Marxist form of European imperialism lie in Marx’ — and his followers’ — links to the tradition of Newton, Hegel, and the others."

"Capitalists, at least, can be relied upon to develop uranium as fuel only at the rate at which they can show a good profit. That’s their ethic, and maybe that will buy some time. Marxists, on the other hand, can be relied upon to develop uranium fuel as rapidly as possible simply because it’s the most “efficient” production fuel available. That’s their ethic, and I fail to see where it’s preferable. Like I said, Marxism is right smack in the middle of the European tradition. It’s the same old song."

As you can see they are not just anti-Capitalist, they are anti-modern and these passages are merely the tip of the iceberg. If we were living under Socialism, they would be just as anti-Socialist as they are anti-Capitalist and they would be suppressed under Socialism.

R: 24 / I: 4 / P: 8 [R] [G] [-]

/marx/ thoughts on China? Obviously it's a capitalist country currently, so is the CCP communist in name only? Or is there a legitimate praxis to achieve socialism?

R: 29 / I: 5 / P: 8 [R] [G] [-]

what went wrong ?

R: 14 / I: 3 / P: 8 [R] [G] [-]

PCE going back to Marxism-Leninism 40 years later

Today 2 of November 2017 the Communist party of Spain (PCE), one of the strongest and more historically important Communist parties in Europe and one of the few who has political representation in their national parlament https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partido_Comunista_de_Espa%C3%B1a, has decided by a a majority in the 20th party congress currently going on, to go back to Marxism-Leninism as the party line 40 years later https://twitter.com/elpce/status/936937052112908288 // http://www.mundoobrero.es/pl.php?id=7625,

They were one of the parties who abandoned Marxism -Leninism in the 60s and decided to go Eurocommunist (although the party still mantained a Marxist.Leninist majority in their militant ranks). This shows how Eurocommunism has not achieved anything in Europe being just as Lenin would have called it "an infantile disorder".

And although the party has still to improve a lot (they have been a reformist power for the last 40 years, they are lots of anti-Leninist still in important positions, they have been rejecting class struggle for a long time….) this could be the start, of the PCE becoming a ML revolutionary party again, and fight for socialism in Spain.

This process is what has been happening (to some degree) to the greek KKE, who went Marxist -Leninist again some years ago ,and are becoming a mass movement in Greece.

Also the good thing is that this only has been possible, because the youngest ranks of the party ( the UJCE wich is fastly growing and has at this moment the biggest number of members in their ranks since the Spanish Civil war times, and who are starting to have an strong presence in the streets) , has fought to break the old party stablishment, and push back again the Marxist-Leninist line that thay have always maintained https://twitter.com/UJCE/status/936969294537199616.

Could this be the comeback of the PCE as a revolutionary party?? Could it become the vanguard of the working class or they are still going to be some reformist party , who supports capitalist parties such as Podemos in burgeoise elections?

Also in their coungress they have had representation from socialist countries such as Cuba for the first time since they adopted Eurocommunism

R: 8 / I: 3 / P: 8 [R] [G] [-]

Why is Marxism the most successful, dynamic and poverty reducing form of economics in the 20th century? it literally would've saved the world if it wasn't for those meddling capitalist kids and the cia!

R: 1 / I: 1 / P: 8 [R] [G] [-]

(originally posted to leftypol)

I'm starting to suspect that the distinction between what's called "Marxism-Leninism" and what's just called "Leninism" was made up decades after the Russian revolution, by (probably) some academics who felt that the true principles of Lenin had been betrayed by the Stalinists/M-L's.

Some posters on /leftypol/ claim that Stalin invented M-L and that Leninism is something else, but the book Stalin wrote is called "Foundations of Leninism", and through out he calls it only Leninism. Are there actually any historical non-ML Leninist movements (of any significance)? "Foundations of Leninism" was written the same year Lenin died, and I doubt the label "Leninism" was used much before Lenin's death. So based on my limited knowledge of the history of the term, it seems like Leninism (which is the same thing as M-L) is an ideology that was formalized in the USSR after Lenin's death, mainly by Stalin, and all other Leninist/ML movements (Vietnamese communists, Chinese communists, etc.) have been part of this same tradition. I can't think of any significant movements that have been "Leninist but not Marxist-Leninist".

I know Trotsky used to call himself a "Bolshevik-Leninist" or something like that but it never stuck. It has pretty much always been called "Trotskyism" by everyone else.

Obviously, you can use any word you like to refer to any set of ideas (so if you wanna call yourself a non-ML Leninist because you "believe in the true ideas of Lenin which were betrayed by Stalin and the USSR", that's fine), but I'm trying to think about these terms in their historical context, and there no actual distinction between Leninism and M-L exists, right?

R: 8 / I: 1 / P: 8 [R] [G] [-]

Why are niggers so fucking retarded?

R: 2 / I: 0 / P: 8 [R] [G] [-]

Values, principles and worldview.

Originally posted this to /leftypol/, but thought it might spawn some interesting discussion here as well.

Do you ever feel like you spend so much time reading socialist political theory, and arguing with people of different socialist tendencies about various interpretations of some sentence in some 150 year old book, that you at times almost forget why you're a socialist in the first place? Let's have a thread where we discuss the fundamental values, principles, and ideas about what a good society looks like, that shape our political views.

I honestly have a hard time articulating this sort of stuff without sounding like an idiot, but I'll try if this thread doesn't go anywhere, just to get the ball rolling.

R: 7 / I: 2 / P: 8 [R] [G] [-]

I'm finally reading Is The Red Flag Flying, but I have a few questions.why were only party members allowed to vote in the USSR, why weren't common people able to criticize high ranking party officials, the book implies that democracy was a facade under Stalin but was more legitimate from Kruschev onward what do yo think /marx/.

R: 17 / I: 3 / P: 8 [R] [G] [-]

The Marxist-Leninist Theory of History

I don't know how many of you browse /leftypol/ so I'm posting my thread here as well. I'd like to see what you have to say to this argument against Marxism. Hopefully I won't get banned.

>It is a fundamental principle, if not an axiom, of Marxism that capital is a fiction and only exists as an illegitimate and parasitic phenomenon, which alienates from the workers part of the value created by labor. This is why Capitalism is called "Capitalism" and Marx's book about it Das Kapital. However, Marx's own system contains a feature that can only be understood as reflecting the reality of capital. As Marx allowed, indeed celebrated, that over time the material conditions and modes of production change and improve, representing the economic progress of history, he overlooked the circumstance that this progress must then be ranked according to a system and scale of value. The quantity of labor may not change, but what it can produce, in quantity and quality, does. The ratio between quantity and quality of labor is called "productivity."

>Thus, the vast number of Egyptian masons and other laborers who could produce a pyramid, an essentially useless object, would now be put to better use producing the consumer and capital goods of an industrial economy. The difference in productivity between the pyramid builders and automobile makers is covered by Marx with a version of Hegel's dialectic, which is supposed to produce ever more complex and sophisticated structures with each iteration. Be that as it may, this effectively introduces a new variable into the equation of value. A quantity of automobile labor differs in a different dimension of value from an equal quantity of pyramid labor. Nothing prevents Marx from identifying such a scale in the dimension of dialectical progression. However, there is already a name for such a scale of value: It is the value of capital, including human capital.

>Pyramid building is labor intensive production, while automobile building is capital intensive production. Capital intensive production requires skills and knowledge, whose fruits may be effected by the industrial workers, but which may only be conceived and held systematically in the consciousness of the industralist, i.e. the Henry Ford. Yet even the level of capital development represented by pyramid building, whose products remain marvels of human achievement (at least for their audacity, scale, technical achievement, and durability – not unlike the Eiffel Tower), is historically credited to one genius, the semi-divine III Dynasty architect Imhotep, . Marx's denial of the existence and necessity of capital means that his own theory is incoherent, since it denies but does actually contain a scale of value, which we can now recognize as that of capital, to explain improved modes of production, increased productivity, and more technologically and aesthetically sophisticated products. His entire theory of the historical dialectic of class struggle depends on this, and yet it is simultaneously refuted by it. In order to disparage the success of capitalism, modern Marxists are reduced to anhedonic and anaesthetic condemnations of "consumerism," recycling moralistic arguments originated by Plato.

R: 4 / I: 1 / P: 8 [R] [G] [-]

debunk this

R: 1 / I: 1 / P: 9 [R] [G] [-]

Is world-systems theory bullshit or legit? Is it compatible with the Leninist conception of imperialism and monopoly stage of capitalism (and if not, what are the differences between them)? Is Maoism-Third Worldism the logical conclusion of world-systems theory?

R: 2 / I: 1 / P: 9 [R] [G] [-]

/sg/

Does anybody here (Or any other left-leaning board) participate in Syria Generals?

R: 14 / I: 8 / P: 9 [R] [G] [-]

This question got me banned from /leftpol/

Why is it ok to oppress the rich and wealthy but it's bad to oppress the jews?

Also, the other day while I was talking to one of you commies, he said that Angela Rape-my-country Merkel was right wing, and Jeremy Commie Corbyn was a centrist, so my question to you guys is, where on the compass are these two in your eyes?

R: 1 / I: 0 / P: 9 [R] [G] [-]

podcasts

Anyone know of any good ML podcasts?

R: 3 / I: 3 / P: 9 [R] [G] [-]

https://imgur.com/a/HYmrA

This person lives in a relatively nice home with a lot of over priced garbage everywhere, paid for by welfare, which pays enough that it can buy all that and still be fat, the state also pays for It's incredibly expensive transitioning and eventual DRS.

All this while spending 16 hours a day online rallying other well off well fed idiots to attack the working class as hard as they can in the name of saving the working class. They hope this will destroy the system that supports their parasitic asses.

Really makes you think.

Really makes you think.

R: 7 / I: 4 / P: 9 [R] [G] [-]

October Revolution

Long live the workers!!LONG LIVE THE WORKERS!!

Long live the millions that rose up in the first huge victory for the working class, for the ones that struggled to overthrow capitalism, the ones that fought for their rights, for communism!!

Long live the workers that guided by Lenin and the Bolsheviks, inspired by Marx and Engels ideas, fought and triumphed to stablish a better system!!

Because today 100 years later they deserve to be recognized ,as they inspired, inspire and will inspire, the oppresed workers to rise up.

Because although 100 years later it seems capitalism is again unstopable, this remebers us that there is nothing as the force of the workers united, that there is teh possiblity for a more Fair system, were oppresion is ended.

So today comrades join, independently on your particular thoughts, because we remember the workers that struggled to achieve their goals.

I hope some day we will be able to see what they fought for.

ALL POWER TO THE SOVIETS!!

LONG LIVE THE WORKERS!!l

PS::What are you doing to celebrate it comrades?

R: 5 / I: 2 / P: 9 [R] [G] [-]

I don't buy le genocide meme so I fully encourage you to drop all your thick commie redpills on my gaping roadie asshole

R: 2 / I: 0 / P: 9 [R] [G] [-]

Is China still socialist??

Do any of you think China is still a socialist country?? Or at least an state capitalist dictatorship of the proletariat?

Do you believe the Chinese are going back sometime to a socialist planned economy withouth burgeoise, generalized commodity production and private porperty?

R: 6 / I: 1 / P: 9 [R] [G] [-]

Flags?

Maybe this has been discussed here before, but what about adding the option of posting with a flag, similar to /leftypol/ (before they fucked it up)? Good idea or no? I assume the intention is for this to remain a primarily ML board, so maybe we wouldn’t need a Bookchin flag or anything, but for example an ordinary ML flag, a Maoist flag, a Hoxhaist flag, etc? Alternatively (or additionally) the flags of former and currently existing socialist states like Cuba, DPRK, Yugoslavia, etc.

R: 13 / I: 1 / P: 9 [R] [G] [-]

Rojava

Hello, I'm from /leftypol/.

I was wondering what you /marx/ists think of Rojava. I know that there are ML, Maoist, and Hoxhaist groups from other countries fighting alongside them, but I also know that some Marxists, both in Syria and abroad, support Assad's government and believe that Rojava is just a US puppet state. What do you lads think?

Pic unrelated

R: 6 / I: 0 / P: 9 [R] [G] [-]

Destroy the Fascist online!

There's an HTML game out on the internet called POWER - a multiplayer american political simulation game, and it needs your help. If you all think that the current Republican regime is bad, wait until you get a load of the Republicans in power in this game. To give you a taste, the leader has changed the national name from USA to The Greater American Reich. You heard that right. Reich.

That leads to the heart of the issue: There is legitimately no feasible opposition to these fascists from the left. They have all been factionalized into small tribes which are a shell of the former power that was the Democratic Party. The competent minds went one direction, the resources went another, and those that were devoted simply left.

Which brings me to my proposal: Join the game. The way I see it, you have two options for opposing the fascist regime in the game:

1) The Democratic People's Union (DPU): A small but growing group of players that carry the competence required to contest the right wing. They have dedicated themselves to an IWW-esque model of direct democracy and direct action to run the party, and have dedicated themselves to the ideal of an Industrial Democracy where all the workers share in the wealth and all have an equal say. Their weakness is that, while they are growing, they need more. They need more members, they need more resources, they need more support.

2) The Democratic Party (DNC): The old-guard of the Democrats is all but lost. This party has long-since lost its way on the path to neoliberalism and has found itself very malleable to the will of whomever is in charge. This has left them weak and helpless to fend off the GOP, as the last band of competent players either left them for the DPU or betrayed them and chose an unholy alliance with the fascists. Their strength, however, is that their resources are all but limitless in the system. If you can ascend to the top quickly, you could find yourself at the helm of a mighty power.

PS if you get a chance vote STONE in the DPU for chair.

R: 29 / I: 8 / P: 9 [R] [G] [-]

/leftypol/ is a hellhole

First off, sorry for sliding the board. But honestly what's your stance on all that drama on /leftypol/ since yesterday? A few minutes ago I got banned for arguing that Russia isn't an imperialist actor in Syria. There is currently a war going on between the mods which consists of a side that bans people for euphemizing US imperialism, and another side that bans people on sight who are critical towards the YPG.

All because some Anarchists, Leftcoms and YPG posters made endless threads about the BO saying that you shouldn't openly support imperialism. I'm tending to side with the BO on this - he didn't actually say that you can't support Rojava but that you should recongize that imperialism exists, and that it is a problem, which should be common sense for a leftist board. I feel like the quality of /leftypol/ has been going down a lot recently, with an extremly vocal anti-ML front and this kinda feels like the final nail in the coffin. I've seen posters being absolutely ignorant to even accept that there are marxist definitions of imperialism out there that make sense, and that there is theory out there interlodging anti-imperialism with class struggle (which kinda is inseperable anyway). I've been trying to summarize people about Maos dialectic of contradictions, and the responses I got were unisono "not gonna bother, red fascism, dumb and proud". I'm kinda done with this board, Leftcoms ruined it, creating an extremly narrow-minded consensus.

R: 1 / I: 1 / P: 9 [R] [G] [-]

I'm looking for that PDF that dismantled Popper's falsifiability connected on Marxism.

Anybody has it?

R: 36 / I: 27 / P: 9 [R] [G] [-]

Let's talk about North Korea. Does it qualify as a socialist state? Most of the criticisms which have been leveled at North Korea say that their extensive personality cult arround their leaders is monarchistic and quasi-religious, and that they have scrapped Marxism-Leninism from their constitution. Both criticisms are legitimate in my opinion, but they are also irrelevant when it comes to a marxist analysis of wether or not North Korea is socialist. Juche and the extensive leader worship might be revisionist, but is it really an economic form of revisionism, of the likes we have seen in Russia and China? I don't think so. The break with Marxism-Leninism is mostly in name, made as a political decision after the downfall of the Eastern Bloc, and the DPRK, being located next to its giant neighbour China, had to give up playing both sides after the Soviet-Sino-Split - however, they still uphold socialism as their economic and political system.

I guess my approach is the following: Can the Juche idea be considered the specific expression of a socialist construction tailored to the conditions the North Korean people find themselves in? The limitation of civil liberties and leader worship can not only be culturally explained due to the strong roots of the Korean strain of Confucianism within Korean society, but also first and foremost by the fact the capitalist world wages an unprecendeted form of economic terrorism and information war against the small country. Facing the entire capitalist world without blinking, it is almost inevitable that they become hermeneutic and isolated. It is also worth noting that contrary to western information, the DPRK is almost entirely self-sustainable, and the influence of China regarding North Koreas survival is often overstated, as trade with China makes up less than 5% of the annual GDP of the DPRK.

I'd like to share a link to this think tank that is very informative and in-depth regarding North Korea. Since it's American, it can't really be accused of being biased towards North Kora.

http://www.38north.org/

There also have been misconceptions in claiming that the DPRK entertains a social caste system fueled with racism and nationalism. The claims of the western authors, who never even been to North Korea and base their assumptions on hearsay, are debunked here:

https://www.rhizzone.net/articles/songbullshit/

https://www.liberationnews.org/my-trip-to-north-korea-13-misconceptions-corrected/

Also, accumulated DPRK counter-narrative:

https://vngiapaganda.wordpress.com/pro-dprk-propaganda/

http://theduran.com/truth-north-korea-booming/

R: 2 / I: 1 / P: 9 [R] [G] [-]

So we obviously all like Lenin, but what is your particular opinion of the man and his theory/leadership? What did he get right and what did he get wrong in your opinion?

R: 4 / I: 1 / P: 10 [R] [G] [-]

Is there a way to achieve communism without a hive-mind or the enslavement of the proletariat?

R: 1 / I: 0 / P: 10 [R] [G] [-]

Catalonia just declared independence. So far, South Ossetia is the only country to recognize it.

R: 4 / I: 2 / P: 10 [R] [G] [-]

Anyone else ANTI-GLASSES GANG here? So there's this obscure alt-righter I follow on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMnOYHkeDPc)) who recently made a video on destroying statues/"history" and tried to compare it to Kampuchea's Year Zero, despite the fact the Khmer Rouge was very anti-Marxist in its policies and saw its attacks on the on the urban bourgeisie and its symbols not as a path for creating a Proletarian Culture and destroying the counterrevolutionary elements remaining in the country, like Mao's Cultural Revolution did but as a way to return Cambodian culture and society to a previous "untainted" state by returning it to its roots and removing foreign and degenerate elements, something much more analogous with reactionary polices such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichserbhofgesetz than with any Marxist doctrine.

What were the most dramatic doctrinaire deviations between the CPK and regular Maoism? Are there any good historical sources that detail them? Most of the content I've seen on Kampuchea comes from Soror Adriana.

R: 1 / I: 1 / P: 10 [R] [G] [-]

hello my stalinist friends:) just a few questions. what do you think of democracy I know you support it but do you prefer a more partipatory style of democracy or a representative based one. how does planning work in your system does the beaurocracy decide how goods are allocated or is the plan supposed to be voted on. do you have any good sources on how the kulaks caused the famine how would you stop something like this from happening in a modern revolution.

R: 4 / I: 4 / P: 10 [R] [G] [-]

Can you be a Marxist-Leninist and still consider yourself a part of the "libertarian left"? I'm a ML but I think democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom of religion, etc. are good principles. Obviously if you're in the middle of a civil war or a revolution, you probably won't give a fuck about your enemies' right to spread their propaganda, but I think a future socialist society should stick to those principles as much as possible.

I also think people should generally be free to choose what drugs they put into their bodies, who they have sex with, how they want to dress, what they want to read, etc. I don't mean that any restriction of individual liberty in a society is a unjustified, but I think there always needs to be legitimate reasons as to why such a restriction would be necessary before it's done.

What do you guys think of the 'individual liberty vs. the good of society' debate?

R: 4 / I: 1 / P: 10 [R] [G] [-]

This is a thread you post in if you want books or articles about a particular subject and nothing more.

* https://8ch.net/marx/res/4702.html (USSR-related questions)

R: 1 / I: 1 / P: 10 [R] [G] [-]

why are there pro-imperialist leftcoms ?

pic unrelated

R: 9 / I: 3 / P: 10 [R] [G] [-]

Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution

It is almost impossible to determine what really happened here. While it was clearly a power play by Mao in the beginning, it did take on a real grassroots proletarian character through the independently formed Red Guard groups. And while it did focus on landlords, bourg teachers, and capital, it also was aimed at Mao's rivals.

Thus it was both a top-down order from Mao, and a true proletarian uprising.

But if it was a decentralized movement, why was it so easy for Mao to dissemble the movement and order the red guards to the countryside?

What does /marx think of this?

R: 4 / I: 2 / P: 10 [R] [G] [-]

Questions to ML's

Posted this at /leftypol/ but thought I might try here as well:

What exactly does being a Marxist-Leninist entail? Marxism + vanguard party + democratic centralism + analysis of imperialism as the higest stage of capitalism? The thing is, I basically agree with ML on paper, and I find many of the critiques of it to be absolute shit, but I'm still hesitant to actually call myself an ML. Genuine democracy, individual rights, personal liberties, the freedom to criticise your government, and such values are really important to me, but they usually aren't considered to have been to strong points of previous ML states. If we use the USSR as an example, there are three different positions ML's could take:

>The USSR was a genuinely democratic society, were people were free to criticise the government, individual rights were protected, etc.

>There was a lack of democracy, protection of individual rights, etc. in the USSR which was a serious flaw, but that was mainly due to the difficult circumstances under which the country developed.

>There was a lack of democracy, protection of individual rights, etc. in the USSR, but those things aren't really that important anyway. If dictatorship, authoritarianism and supression of individual rights and liberties is necessary for socialism, that's totally fine and will have to do.

Which position is most consistent with Marxism-Leninism? Which is most common among ML's?

Also, ML's are almost always labeled as being authoritarian (both by other leftists and by liberals). Do you reject that label, and in that case on what grounds? I know revolutions are inherently authoritarian, I've read that Engels quote, but I wouldn't say that I have an "authoritarian ideology".

I would really like to hear some thoughts on these sort of questions from an ML/MLM perspective.

R: 4 / I: 1 / P: 10 [R] [G] [-]

Should we make an attempt at trying to win the 10th Attention-Hungry Games?

Could be great publicity, attract a few more people, radicalise some

R: 1 / I: 1 / P: 10 [R] [G] [-]

Why do I get 404 when trying to open the sticky thread?

R: 1 / I: 0 / P: 10 [R] [G] [-]

ETA

In a discussion I had with a Spanish colleague (left-leaning but still dipped in bourg ideology), the ETA organisation was brought up and my colleagues take was that "they were super useful in the fight against Franco's dictatorship but went on to become a full-on terrorist group that kills civilians by the hundreds".

What is /marx's opinion on ETA? Are they a righteous Marxist-Leninist independence movement or a revolutionary group that lost it's cause? Also, any non-bourg resources on ETA would be highly appreciated.

R: 7 / I: 6 / P: 10 [R] [G] [-]

How the Bourgeoisie supports the Right

So, I made this thread on /leftypol/ and very few people took it seriously or had much interest in it. Basically, I wanted to debunk the idea that the Right-wing is counter-cultural or somehow opposed to the Western liberal Establishment. Let's talk about the right-wing portion of the bourgeoisie, what drives it, what are its aims, how does it achieve its goals what networks do they run, how influential are they and their propaganda, who funds them etc.

Some workers are under the impression that neo-fascists waiving the protectionist/welfarist/anti-immigrant banner are pro-worker let's show the evidence that the working class under fascism and other right-wing "anti-globalist" electoral is still enslaved as bad, if not worse then it is under liberal capitalism.

Let's talk about the right-wing shills who push anti-Marxist ideas and are in fake opposition to centrist and pseudo-leftist anti-Marxist shills. It doesn't have to be limited to specific people or movements but the general nature of their propaganda and how it is fallacious.

R: 2 / I: 1 / P: 10 [R] [G] [-]

Translations

Anyone here wanna do translations for other languages to english? I am fluent in Chinese and would translate any articles you provide me to English (May take some time)

Examples from captions below

Pic with the RPG: "Chairman Mao's People's War thought (or ideology to be exact) will forever (eternally) shine light (In this refrence it means to forever be prestigious).

Guy with the machinegun :

"(if) people don't mess with me, I won't mess with them, (if) people mess with me, I will mess with them."

This is a proverb from Mao's Debating the (government) policy

The original is as such:“对于国民党军队，应继续采取人不犯我，我不犯人的政策，尽量地发展交朋友的工作”

"In the aspect of the ROC military, continue to utilize the '(if) people don't mess with me, I won't mess with them, (if) people mess with me, I will mess with them' policy, try to continue the job of expanding the network of friends."

Pic with the two guys and the little red book:

"Wilderness training trains the red heart, always closely follow Chairman Mao"

Red heart-Originates as symbol of loyalty in ancient China, eg; Wentian Xiang's Crossing the Lingding sea's last line "From the ancients to present, has a person not died? I leave my red (loyal) heart to history to clear my name"

Also, general translation request thread, art, speeches, literature, etc. I'd post a translation rn of some literature from Lu Xun but I'm lazy

R: 2 / I: 2 / P: 10 [R] [G] [-]

Where is Bukharin stuff in ebook reader friendly (Kindle, that being mobi, epub) format? Converting Marxists.org pages is fucking hell.

R: 3 / I: 2 / P: 11 [R] [G] [-]

Law in Socialist Countries

What are some good resources for studying the way the legal system worked in socialist countries? I'm curious about legal philosophy and legal reform.

R: 9 / I: 2 / P: 11 [R] [G] [-]

Help:Socialist Albania and Revisionism

Hello marx , Back again

I was reading an article for a very popular Arab Stalinist author & I found that he was attacking Albania and hoxha calling them by "fakes"who tried to hide their first history , and he quoted from what happend in the third congress of the PLA alot, and he "proved" that Hoxha was "Okay" at first with khurshuv and the soviet revisionists, even with the attacking on stalin under the slogans of (anti-dogmatism,anti-personalcult.. etc)..

>is all that true?

and please can someone tell exactly what happend in the 3rd congress (PLA) ,and if anyone could prove what happend too by docs ,I would be thankful alot.

R: 1 / I: 0 / P: 11 [R] [G] [-]

Fighting for the working class

What can I do to help the working class? Specifically to improve worker welfare and raise class conciseness!

R: 20 / I: 5 / P: 11 [R] [G] [-]

THIS BOARD IS SHIT

AUTISM THE BOARD

AUTISM THE BOARD

AUTISM THE BOARD

AUTISM THE BOARD

AUTISM THE BOARD

AUTISM THE BOARD

AUTISM THE BOARD

AUTISM THE BOARD

AUTISM THE BOARD

LENIN WAS FOUNDED BY CAPITALISTS AND KINGS

LENIN WAS FOUNDED BY CAPITALISTS AND KINGS

LENIN WAS FOUNDED BY CAPITALISTS AND KINGS

LENIN WAS FOUNDED BY CAPITALISTS AND KINGS

LENIN WAS FOUNDED BY CAPITALISTS AND KINGS

LENIN WAS FOUNDED BY CAPITALISTS AND KINGS

LENIN WAS FOUNDED BY CAPITALISTS AND KINGS

LENIN WAS FOUNDED BY CAPITALISTS AND KINGS

YOUR WHOLE IDEOLOGY WAS LITERALLY DESIGNED TO RUIN A NATION

R: 3 / I: 1 / P: 11 [R] [G] [-]

FUUUCKKKK AMERICA

What is your shitty excuse to not defend la Revolución Bolivariana and uphold Latin American socialism and solidarity?

inb4 VIVA CASTRO, CHÁVEZ, MADURO Y MORALES!

R: 2 / I: 1 / P: 11 [R] [G] [-]

.

R: 1 / I: 0 / P: 11 [R] [G] [-]

Venezeula

opinions my fellow marxists and leninists?

R: 5 / I: 2 / P: 11 [R] [G] [-]

(Copypasta'd from leftypol)

I want to start a movement/ party that is traditionally leftist, but rejects IdPol, political correctness and theocracy, namely Islamic theocracy and terrorism which much of the left sucks up to. Would anyone be interested in such a movement? I particularly need people who can reference leftist literature and give it some legitimacy and intellectualism.

R: 2 / I: 2 / P: 11 [R] [G] [-]

How do you feel about market socialism?

R: 40 / I: 18 / P: 11 [R] [G] [-]

Here's a quick question.

Who's lived in, or lives in a communist country right now?

R: 1 / I: 0 / P: 11 [R] [G] [-]

Hello everyone, I am requesting some texts about the German economy from the fall of fascist Germany until Deutsche Wiedervereinigung. I don't speak german, but feel free to post german sources for those that can understand the texts. Any broad political discussion or books would be welcome as well.

I couldn't find anything over at /freedu/. Anyways thanks in advance guys.

R: 3 / I: 3 / P: 11 [R] [G] [-]

Leftypol faggots banned me

What is the proof for human equality?

Why is a homogenous community of people less preferable than a diverse one?

R: 1 / I: 0 / P: 11 [R] [G] [-]

Looks like Cuba soon has to decide which path it's going to take. Obviously the decentralization of the economic planning is happening, the question is, which direction it is going to take. Will it be directed towards more cooperative influence and democratic feedback systems (this is what Cuban government says) or towards market reforms (this is what the western media claims)?

R: 6 / I: 4 / P: 11 [R] [G] [-]

/computing/

What does /marx/ think of this book? The Author, Paul Cockshott is a computer scientist and was in Marxist-Leninist parties in the 70s/80s.

http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf

The book is basically about how you would run a modern planned economy using computers.

R: 2 / I: 2 / P: 11 [R] [G] [-]

Venezeula

R: 4 / I: 3 / P: 12 [R] [G] [-]

Treaty of Brest-Litovsk

I was reading about the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (during WW1) on wikipedia. Apparently, Russia ended up renouncing all sorts of territorial claims and according to the article, Lenin was from the beginning of the negotiations in favour of signing the agreement immediately without counter-negotiation.

I am wondering what was the background of the discussions between the members of the Bolshevik party about the treaty and which were the reasons for Lenin to take such a passive position. Are there any legitimate sources on those events that you guys know of?

R: 2 / I: 0 / P: 12 [R] [G] [-]

Abstract expressionism: Bourgeois?

I remember I once found an article claiming that abstract expressionism as an art movement is a purely bourgeois conception which was developed as reaction against socialist realism and socialism in general. This is quite an interesting subject and I would like to hear the Marxist perspective on it.

Any sources would be highly appreciated

R: 65 / I: 46 / P: 12 [R] [G] [-]

National Liberation Struggles in the US

Obviously I'm anti-idpol, otherwise I wouldn't post on 8ch, and I probably wouldn't feel any particular need to be a Marxist. I'm also going to assume /marx/ is in favor of National Liberation struggle when the case of national self-determination and anti-imperialist struggle. But my question's not about all that. In the 60's and 70's there were a number of anti-white supremacist movements in the US, often deeply inspired by the writings of Marx, Lenin, and Mao, like the Black Nationalist movement, the American Indian Movement, and Chicano Liberation, that all sought self-determination within the borders of US empire. My question is how does /marx/ view these movements and how does /marx/ view these movements as different from a normal anti-imperialist struggle in the Global South. Is it different at all? Also, Ismail, give us you thoughts on J. Sakai's Settlers.

R: 6 / I: 2 / P: 12 [R] [G] [-]

Why is this guy so popular?

I have a liberal friend that has become completely enamored with this guy and it's boggling my mind.

It's actually funny and ironic that he is, too. He rails about the alt-right and always complains about Trump, but he listens to Jordan Peterson, one of the poster children of the alt-right's pseudo-intellectuals.

I've sat down and gotten through 5 minutes of this guy's BS at most. He rails on about Marxism and "postmodernism" but I honest to god don't think he understands or has read a legitimate piece of Marxist literature.

It's pretty bad and even worse that someone I know can't detect this guy's bullshit. He doesn't argue rationally. It'd be cool if someone could debunk his stuff here or maybe do an analysis.

R: 5 / I: 0 / P: 12 [R] [G] [-]

Why do you think of Stirner as being irrelevant?

My understanding of Stirner's philosophy is that he is mounting a charge against liberalism and is not opposed to a workers' bureaucracy (to the annoyance of the anarchists who crowd around him). If anything, his thoughts strike me as being oriented towards practical and is thus very open to using strong theoretical ground, which Marx and his ilk provide despite using ultimately-social-liberal humanism as the basis.

I do not believe that the following passage makes him an irrationalist:

Only as the property of me do the spirits, the truths, get to rest; and they then for the first time really are, when they have been deprived of their sorry existence and made a property of mine, when it is no longer said “the truth develops itself, rules, asserts itself; history (also a concept) wins the victory,” etc. The truth never has won a victory, but was always my means to the victory, like the sword (“the sword of truth”). The truth is dead, a letter, a word, a material that I can use up. All truth by itself is dead, a corpse; it is alive only in the same way as my lungs are alive — to wit, in the measure of my own vitality. Truths are material, like vegetables and weeds; as to whether vegetable or weed, the decision lies in me.

An egoist cannot ignore subjective utility; it changes in accordance with however they change. They must therefore seek useful explanations of the world when deciding upon practical courses of action. This is where I make the connection between Stirner's egoism and the science of Marxian thought.

In Stirner's Critics he makes a further clarification of his position:

Egoism, as Stirner uses it, is not opposed to love nor to thought; it is no enemy of the sweet life of love, nor of devotion and sacrifice; it is no enemy of intimate warmth, but it is also no enemy of critique, nor of socialism, nor, in short, of any actual interest. It doesn’t exclude any interest. It is directed against only disinterestedness and the uninteresting; not against love, but against sacred love, not against thought, but against sacred thought, not against socialists, but against sacred socialists, etc.

If this is not Stirner's egoism, then I cannot be said to be in the tradition of which Stirner is a part. I also do not consider myself to be an anarchist or a leftcom.

inb4 back to /leftypol/

R: 3 / I: 0 / P: 12 [R] [G] [-]

Anti-communism in a nutshell

It's impressive how wrong everything is and at the same time it has had so much predicament.

R: 24 / I: 15 / P: 12 [R] [G] [-]

Why do you guys follow a jewish movement of enslavement and death? Is it intentional? Do you see yourselves as higher up in the parties so that you'll escape the starvation and execution?

Why won't you learn from history?

R: 2 / I: 0 / P: 12 [R] [G] [-]

you should've listened

R: 2 / I: 1 / P: 12 [R] [G] [-]

Hey /marx/ i am relativey new to 8chan and i am glad to find this board!

I just wanted to ask if there is any socialist literature that i should most def. read

pic unrelated

R: 1 / I: 1 / P: 12 [R] [G] [-]

Hello /marx/

Sorry for this kind of a shit thread, but does any of you know where I can find Grover Furr's books in PDF? Besides Khruschev lied, which I already downloaded. I am especially interested in Yezhov vs. Stalin, Blood lies and Trotsky's amalgams.

Thanks

R: 15 / I: 7 / P: 12 [R] [G] [-]

Anarchism

Which are your thoughts on anarchism?

R: 22 / I: 15 / P: 12 [R] [G] [-]

So /marx/,

It's 2017, 100 years since 1917.

How can we create socialism in the modern era?

R: 46 / I: 36 / P: 12 [R] [G] [-]

Congrats on being the only board so far that deserved to get wiped.

R: 4 / I: 2 / P: 12 [R] [G] [-]

USSR's involvement in Spanish Civil War

Hello /marx,

I have recently been in discussions regarding the soviet Russia's involvement in the Spanish Civil War but I am a bit confused. What I have read is that the soviets initially supported the republican revolution but then gradually started sabotaging it because of the ideological difference between USSR and the Anarchist.

I am really wondering what is the actual story behind that conflict since a lot of anti-communist propaganda uses this as an argument against Stalin and USSR in general (aka "soviets betrayed the Spanish revolution argument").

R: 1 / I: 0 / P: 12 [R] [G] [-]

I know their alliance with US-imperialism is problematic, but ignoring that for a second, is their economic and polticial systems something that is worth spending attention to? Can it be reconciled with Marxism-Leninism or reproduced in other places? A lot of Marxist-Leninist parties support Rojava and even have fighters there.

My personal opinion is that I don't really see how they are going to become socialist without implementing centrally planned industrialisation and diversification of the economy, the way Marxist-Leninist states always did it. However, YPG-posters on /leftypol/ gave me articles about how they are actually planning to do that, but I remain sceptical. I don't think Democratic Confederalism works on a bigger scale.

R: 0 / I: 0 / P: 13 [R] [G] [-]

Where did it all go wrong?

How did he fuck up? How could it have been avoided?

R: 3 / I: 0 / P: 13 [R] [G] [-]

Zizek?

Why does Zizek claim to be a communist? I don't understand his disdain for Eastern European socialism. Do you think he knows a lot about history? I vacillate between thinking that he has some legitimate points and a charlatan. It's possible that I don't know enough to be able to dispute him and that's making me question myself.

I'm referring to videos like this one: https://youtu.be/8By985dDSjI

Do you think Zizek is a interesting and useful critic of communism or just another practically impotent left infant?

R: 2 / I: 1 / P: 13 [R] [G] [-]

Khmer Rouge

Can anyone suggest some articles or short books about the Khmer Rouge? I was told once that they were backed by the CIA- is this true?

R: 7 / I: 3 / P: 13 [R] [G] [-]

Why do some Marxists support the Donetsk People's Republic? I don't support Ukraine at all, since there are so many far-right people in key positions in the government and I also don't support the coup. However, I don't see the Donetsk People's Republic as much better.

They sometimes use communist symbolism, but this seems more from a nostalgia point of view than a genuine attempt at a socialist state.

There are a lot of people at key positions in Donetsk with far-right connections, for instance:

- Homosexuality is illegal

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Zakharchenko This guy seems to want a "greater Russia" with the aim of conquering the UK. That seems imperialist and expansionist as fuck. He is also deeply conservative (Russian orthodoxy).

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Borodai This nationalist that has good ties with some antisemitic dude

I don't trust it at all tbh. Aren't both sides equally bad? They both seem far-right nationalists, one side Ukrainian and the other Russian.

R: 0 / I: 0 / P: 13 [R] [G] [-]

Grover Furr

Last thread seems to have 404'd; what is he doing these days? Where can I get some of his tasty new research or articles if he has anything Yes, I've read his latest two books already

R: 4 / I: 2 / P: 13 [R] [G] [-]

thoughts on this? every single time i argue with a right winger they'd link me this video acting like this defector's words is the word of god despite having no further evidence of such operations by the soviet union to "pump the marxist-leninist ideology into the soft heads of three american generations". in school the only memory of MLism mentioned was in history class, not without the 100 billion dead people under stalin or whatever. funny since it was CIA that was the agency that did in fact try to brainwash people into submitting to their view of the world.

R: 0 / I: 0 / P: 13 [R] [G] [-]

Can we possibly post links to places where one might purchase an inexpensive physical book?

In particular I am looking for Captial vols 2 & 3.

R: 5 / I: 1 / P: 13 [R] [G] [-]

Reform vs. Revolution

How does /marx/ feel about reforms vs. revolution? It seems a lot of ML and Maoist groups throughout history have taken a Blanquist approach to revolution, Che Guevera, Red Army Faction, Weather Underground, Red Brigades, the Panthers who sided with Cleaver over Newton and formed the Black Liberation Army, the Shining Path. On the other hand in a lot of Lenin's texts he seems to adamantly defend working within parliaments and seems to view pushing for reforms as a very necessary part of of praxis. I was surprised to find this in my readings because often Lenin is depicted as an immiserationist who viewed armed struggle and insurrection as the only way to achieve Communism. So what's /marx/s opinions on the subject of Revolution vs. Reform? False dichotomy? Or is every reformist just a Bernsteinist, Kautskyite renegade?

R: 5 / I: 2 / P: 13 [R] [G] [-]

ML vs. MLM

Sorry if you comrades have had this thread before but what exactly is the difference between Marxism-Leninism and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism? I know they consider Mao to be the "third stage" of Scientific Socialism, but what justifies the division? In the 60's and 70's "Maoism" was just a shorthand for "anti-

revisionist", but today most MLs are anti-revisionist. Is it just a disagreement over Protracted People's War and the Cultural Revolution? Because this seems like the only real meaningful difference I can see.

R: 2 / I: 0 / P: 13 [R] [G] [-]

>As a result of these and other financial machinations, Apple’s total market value passed $800 billion earlier this year and is well on the way to the$1 trillion mark while the social cost of these operations is borne by millions of working-class families who are deprived of vital services because it is claimed that government has no money to pay for them.

So apparently 25% of the wealth of the super-rich are in tax shelters. What does this mean for the Leninist theory of imperialism? Does it mean that claims of drastic change in the structure of monopoly/oligarchy and therefore the validity of Lenin's theory are completely false? I can't believe that a company will break the 1 trillion mark in our lifetimes thats very close to the Russian Federation's GDP in just one firm.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ultra-rich-hide-25-percent-of-their-wealth-in-tax-havens/5593467

sorry for the Trot link btw

R: 5 / I: 4 / P: 13 [R] [G] [-]

Hello, everyone. I'm looking for firearm related information regarding the Marxist-Leninist states. Specifically, I'm looking for any legislative documents on firearm ownership (what was acceptable to own and what was not, and the process of applying for ownership), censuses on firearm possession if existent, and any other statistical and/or legal information you could provide. Generally, if it's firearm related, capable of being sourced or backed up with other information, and you believe it's relevant to learning more, I'd likely want to know it.

Looking up this information myself only provides cries about the nine brazillian gorillions dead from nogun, and Americans crying about nonexistent communists coming to take their raifus Places that often provide a good starting point for information also seem to be completely blank on the topic.

I've also heard from several people that mandatory service in the republics meant that a great deal of households were, one way or another, armed, and that the military strategies of the nations usually factored it in. I've, however, never found information verifying this claim, no matter how hard I searched.

Pic tangentially related.

R: 5 / I: 4 / P: 13 [R] [G] [-]

how do communists justify 100 million deaths?

yes I'm serious

R: 16 / I: 4 / P: 13 [R] [G] [-]

So I know this board isn't shit /leftypol/ says or anything but is it me or is the moderation there complete shit?

I got a temp ban for talking shit about the lumpen because the anarchists there seem to believe that they are the true revolutionary class instead of the proletariat.

I think its funny they'll bang on about free speech while suppressing the free speech of us leninists but letting the anarchists run wild.

R: 8 / I: 3 / P: 13 [R] [G] [-]

A lot of people on /leftypol/ trying to become leftcoms right now, they see them as some sort of scholar caste.

R: 2 / I: 1 / P: 13 [R] [G] [-]

What does /marx/ think of traditional gender roles? Do you guys believe in gender equality?

If so, convince someone who is looking into Marxism to abandon such a "reactionary" mindset

Also finally we have a new thread up on this board

R: 2 / I: 2 / P: 14 [R] [G] [-]

Comrades Pol Pot and Khmer Rouges

Where can I get texts from Comrade Pol Pot and glorious Cambodian Marxist-Leninists?

Don't you think Comrade Pol Pot and Khmer Rouges deserve their place in the International Communist Movement?

https://cambodiatokampuchea.wordpress.com/

https://cambodiatokampuchea.wordpress.com/2015/08/12/solidarity-with-democratic-kampuchea/

R: 20 / I: 0 / P: 14 [R] [G] [-]

Thoughts on the KKE? What have they done right? Wrong?

I've been reading about some of their practices and I'm curious as to their influence among the working class. Saw that they garnered 300k votes not to long ago which I would consider a pretty good showing. As an American Marxist-Leninist, I wanted to try to learn from successful, contemporary movements and try to emulate any successes they've had. Not part of an American party yet so my reading is just for myself right now.

With that in mind, what do their day to day activities look like? How do they spread consciousness around the workers?

I've found the following links to be helpful/interesting. Hopefully they can stimulate some discussion:

http://inter.kke.gr/en/articles/Theoretical-Issues-regarding-the-Programme-of-the-Communist-Party-of-Greece-KKE/

http://emep.org/modern-social-reformism-and-the-kke/amp/

Additionally, anyone know any good books on the Greek Civil War?

R: 5 / I: 2 / P: 14 [R] [G] [-]

Thoughts?

R: 2 / I: 1 / P: 14 [R] [G] [-]

Hello /marx/,

I've seen a lot of leftcoms critique the USSR for having the law of balue still operating within the ussr, however, despite stalin explaining to why, they just said the soviets were anti marxist. Does anyone have a solid refutall to this meme argument?

R: 31 / I: 8 / P: 14 [R] [G] [-]

Hi.

I have some interesting thought experiements we can run.

You successfully establish your ideal and true marxist state, first order of business:

How would you establish and enforce labor equity?

Keep in mind the following intersections of professionals:

A garbageperson starts at 6am finishes at 3pm 5 days a week, physically demanding, low skill, low stress.

An office worker doing administrative tasks 9 - 5 5 days a week, not physically demanding, low skill, low stress.

Management professional 8-5 6 days a week, office, moderate skill, week not physically demanding, moderate to high stress.

Construction worker, 6-3 5 days a week, moderate skill, physically demanding, low to moderate stress.

Farmer, 5-5 7 days a week, high stress, high skill, physically demanding.

Surgeon, varying hours usually 8 to 12 hour days or more on a 3 to 4 day rotation, some overnight shifts depending on work, usually on call, high skill, high stress, moderate physical demand.

Retail worker, 10-6 3-5 days a week low stress, low physical demand, low to moderate skill depending on the type of retail.

Factory worker, 7-4 5 days a week, moderate stress, moderate physical demand, moderate to low skill.

R: 4 / I: 2 / P: 14 [R] [G] [-]

So after a 5+ year break from Marxism-Leninism/Hoxhaism, I'm starting to explore it again.

Unfortunately, I still have only a few books from that period in my life (including a 1938 print of the short course, thankfully).

While I can certainly remember a number of specifics, my grasp on Marxism-Leninism and even Marxism in general is not what it once was.

I was wondering if someone here would be able to provide me with a ML reading list.

Ideally something that includes material from basic Marxism/Pre-Marxism through to Hoxhaism.

R: 10 / I: 1 / P: 14 [R] [G] [-]

Law of value

So lets pick up where Stalin left

for simplicity lets assume there's only one firm in the economy which employs only one human;

therefore we have a situation where there's only two agents in the market, firm and its employee

my questions are:

1) what is the limits on surplus value accumulation in this situation?

one obvious observation I can make is that the level of profit is limited by the employee wage level

so what is the best course of action for a corporation if its aim is to maximize profits?

2) suppose we have one firm and many employees;

production process for a particular end consumer good is divided into various stages;

each stage represents discrete enterprise producing particular intermediary good (and one enterprise producing end consumer good at the end);

all enterprises owned by one firm;

firm owner decides that the best way to maximize aggregate profit of the firm, is to implement khozraschyot between enterprises, means each enterprise needs to make local profit

Is the whole firm profit more than the sum of profits of individual enterprises?

R: 7 / I: 4 / P: 14 [R] [G] [-]

Good to see /Marx/ is back

Glad to see that the only leftist board that I can have an adult conversation on is back up. It's been in the news a lot so I'm curious about your thoughts on Best Korea? Social-fascist revisionist puppet state of Chinese imperialism? (example of this view within ML circles: http://ciml.250x.com/to/down_with_korean_revisionism_24_7_2013.pdf)

Glorious bulwark of socialism in an age of counter-revolution? Or something in between that while we may not condone should supported against US Imperialism (particularly in the Trump era)?

How good is the evidence that claims the Kims have embezzled 4 billion dollars in Western secret bank accounts? How isolated is North Korea really from the world?

R: 5 / I: 3 / P: 14 [R] [G] [-]

/ECO/

so.. as a learner how can i know about economy , what is economy , what does it talking about and studying exactly , thé economic théories,expressions etc...

all this..for sure there's a guide or something we can start with, thanks /marx/,

R: 8 / I: 3 / P: 14 [R] [G] [-]

the problem with the left

The reason the West became great is because it suppressed clannishness and in-group bias. Romans banned cousin marriage, and the Church banned it to distant cousins. Today, in the UK, Pakistanis marry their cousins all the time and the government does nothing about it.

Marxism destroyed true liberalism by reintroducing in-group bias. The "proletariat" is supposed to work against the rest of society's interest. Now women, non-whites, Muslims, and the "proletariat" all work for their own self interest in a war of all against all. This is tribalism, and it's toxic. You can't get ahead in a tribalist society without being a tribalist, which is why white men like me are giving up on liberalism temporarily. We are the only group that liberalism is still enforced for. We are expected to act in society's interests, not our own.

We need a classically liberal dictator to restore liberalism and beat the tribalists into submission.

R: 6 / I: 0 / P: 14 [R] [G] [-]

did the marx brothers need a 4th member?

well did they?

R: 1 / I: 1 / P: 14 [R] [G] [-]

That face when the peasants in charge of jew marx's grave couldn't think of a better way to manage it than to run it as a business and charge people to see it.

> because capitalism is better

R: 7 / I: 3 / P: 14 [R] [G] [-]

Hello, children. It is I

R: 4 / I: 2 / P: 14 [R] [G] [-]

Can anyone recommend some sources that debunk the liberal argument that everyone was a lazy shit under socialism and that no one worked hard without being extorted?

R: 2 / I: 1 / P: 14 [R] [G] [-]

A liberal friend is demanding peer-reviewed evidence in support of socialism.

What the hell do I give him

I don't know contemporary thought very well

R: 18 / I: 10 / P: 15 [R] [G] [-]

This is a thread where you ask me for sources on whatever subject and I will give you some to the best of my ability.

R: 20 / I: 9 / P: 15 [R] [G] [-]

What age did you outgrow this ideology? For me I must have been around, 17 when I started to mature mentally.

R: 4 / I: 3 / P: 15 [R] [G] [-]

So yeah /marx/ is back apparently.

R: 10 / I: 6 / P: 15 [R] [G] [-]

What went wrong?

R: 9 / I: 4 / P: 15 [R] [G] [-]

R: 14 / I: 0 / P: 15 [R] [G] [-]

CCP (Maoist)

Came across this today:

https://ri-ir.org/2010/08/12/maoist-communist-party-of-china-on-2nd-socialist-revolution/

What do you think? Their line seems pretty legit/ideal. But I haven't been able to find out too much about them. Anyone have any information about them, recent or otherwise?

R: 4 / I: 2 / P: 15 [R] [G] [-]

What is the M-L response to the LeftCom critiques of the economy of the USSR & Co by the likes of Pannekoek and Bordiga where they condemned it as being essentially capitalist? Some of their essays for reference:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1936/dictatorship.htm

https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1951/doctrine.htm

https://libcom.org/library/horsepower-bordiga

R: 0 / I: 0 / P: 15 [R] [G] [-]

The Anarchists Podcast #2: CIA Boogaloo; Vault 7, Assassination, and TERFs

R: 4 / I: 3 / P: 15 [R] [G] [-]

On Boris Ponomariov

What do you think about him?

R: 4 / I: 1 / P: 15 [R] [G] [-]

marx was jealous of engels and stirners affair. thats why he went so far to criticize stirner. he was heart broken.

R: 7 / I: 11 / P: 15 [R] [G] [-]

/MARX/ ETERNALLY, IRREVOCABLY BTFO

/MARX/ ETERNALLY AND IRREVOCABLY BTFO

HOW DOES IT FEEL TO BE ASSBLASTED WORSHIPPERS OF AN ICOMPETENT CUCK?

R: 2 / I: 1 / P: 15 [R] [G] [-]

Is buying luxury items counter revolutionary, I've heard this point made before, but will refusing to spend \$15 dollars on a waifu body pillow realm take down capitalism. What do you think /marx/.

R: 24 / I: 14 / P: 15 [R] [G] [-]

Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, article and questions.

Hello, first I'm pretty new to marxist literature, and second , English is not my native language so sorry if I don't explain myself really well.

Today I was reading some posts in r marxism 101, searching for an explanation to what's the ideal way to get rid of Capitalism and the State, and I found this article: http://www.aaap.be/Pages/Transition-en-Marxism-And-State-Communism-1932.html

It basically makes a distinction between Marxism and Marxism Leninism, criticizing the latter for strengthening the power of the State instead of giving it away to the workers and actually forming a Communist country or state (or whatever) in the way Marx intended.

And that the failures of most communist leaders it's because of that mistake (giving the State more and more power)

So my question is, how would marxists leninists deal with the criticism that this article makes?

Why is the Marxism-Leninism way of reaching Communism preferable to others?

(Obviously I would prefer if you read the complete article instead of just answering my questions, but maybe it's a bit too long)