[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ausneets / b2 / dempart / doomer / leftyb / monarchy / vg / vichan ]

/marx/ - Marxism

It makes you smart

Catalog   Archive

Winner of the 78th Attention-Hungry Games
/bimbo/ - Plastic and Fantastic!

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

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

File: 1428936027574.jpg (235.44 KB, 951x659, 951:659, enver_hoxha_republic_decla….jpg)


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

99 posts and 37 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
Post last edited at



Here's a brief bourgeois work on Romania under Dej: https://drive.google.com/open?id=156Gt_W7UvMjqaXqHWTMBVPuA84AG5kK4

I do own books that talk about Romania, but they aren't online. If there's anything in particular you want to know, feel free to ask in the "Ask me questions about anything" thread.

File: ecce722a361b9e6⋯.jpg (101.61 KB, 726x481, 726:481, 7657175373.jpg)


I have just started reading Kapital and this is the first question that arose for me about the labour theory of value: how does tit account for the exact same thing costing different prices even though they have the same amount of labour put in to the? So for instance, if a bottled water company made 2 batches of their product and shipped them over the same distance, but ones destination was Europe and the others was an impoverished country in Africa, the latter one would cost noticeably more than the first. Of course, this is because water is rarer in Africa than in Europe, but how does labour theory of value explain this difference? Is it because the batch of bottled water becomes like the locally produced one (which has more labour put in to it)? If so, what about a smaller situation where the difference in price exists in a smaller and the same area? So for instance ice cream kiosk will sell its good for more if it is closer to the beach (where people would be willing to pay more) than if it was in the centre of the town that is right next to the same beach.

PS Since I have a limited time for reading, I only read the first part of the chapter on the labour theory of value, so I'm sorry if this is explained later in the book.


um... do you know anything about economics at all? literally everything you said is just wrong on so many levels.



To be honest, I only really know the basics. And that is the reason why I want to read Marx and why I am here - I want to learn. I would be really happy if you explained why what I said is stupid


If demand in place X and place Y is very different while the transportation cost of the product is so small it can be neglected, you seem to believe it logically follows that the thing will have different prices in place X and Y besides little to no difference in production & delivery cost. But does that really follow? IF the supplier is a monopolist AND can also somehow prevent reselling, what you said surely follows.

If you aren't a monopolist and transporting the thing is very cheap, why wouldn't competition lead to people from the cheap place transporting it to the expensive place and sell there, as long as the price difference makes them money? Even if you are a monopolist, how do you prevent this reselling?

We need to come up with proper examples for that. If what you provide is something used up on the spot, reselling isn't an issue; the more it is a service and not a tangible thing, the better you can prevent reselling, but then it seems unlikely that there is some scarce material(s) involved in producing what you sell which would make the business prone to monopoly formation. If moving the thing is hard to impossible because of it's physical properties, then… hmm maybe something involving secret technology for constructing buildings in a certain way can work as an example.

So the particular combination causing the effect you are after seems to be rather exceptional and not useful for describing the usual way the economy functions in broad strokes.

File: 977452305118bf8⋯.jpg (228.85 KB, 621x784, 621:784, William Foster.jpg)


Old thread: https://8ch.net/marx/res/13097.html

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.

304 posts and 19 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: c35723e9a16dc17⋯.jpg (145 KB, 720x570, 24:19, n473nr7492kq91lt903_201905….jpg)


Thanks for the quick reply. Coincidentally I'm also partly Canadian. When you get around to scanning I will probably give those a gander. As my knowledge on Canada would be as strong as your knowledge on Australia.


File: bdb86acd96d9d72⋯.jpg (24.45 KB, 500x282, 250:141, hank.jpg)



>Coincidentally, I have on my desk two books I will soon scan: a history of the Communist Party of Canada (published by the party itself in 1982) and the autobiography of Tim Buck (the party's leader from 1929-62.)

That reminds me, I borrowed the works of Stanley Bréhaut Ryerson from archive.org and ripped the DRM and uploaded it to Library Genesis


This two volume work on the history of Canada from a Marxist perspective is the only of its kind that I'm aware of.

"The Founding Of Canada: Beginnings To 1815" [I just uploaded this today since it apparently only became available since last time I looked for it]


"Unequal Union: Roots of Crisis in the Canadas, 1815-1873" [I uploaded this in 2017]


You can already read "French Canada: A Study in Canadian Democracy" fully on google books:



Thoughts on Deng Xiaoping? Clearly he has done wonders for China in many ways, but was he a good communist? Was he a convinced communist or was he just pretending and playing along? What did he mean with his famous line about how it doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white so long as it catches mice?

How come the Gang of Four lost in the end? Were they not the "rightful heirs" of the Mao legacy? Speaking of Mao, was he a bad communist? I've heard that he had some vestiges of bourgeois nationalism in him still, and obsessed over certain geographical areas over petty reasons (in the context of socialist internationalism certainly) to the point where relations with the Soviets soured, is this true? How much of the Sino-Soviet split can be accounted to "bourgeois nationalism"?

What do you think of modern China and Xi Jinping? Is it accurate to say that life is leaps and bounds better in modern China than Mao-era China? Do they still fly the red flag genuinely, do you think? What do you think the future holds for China? Will they replace the United States as the leading power?


Which countries today have a fundamentally socialist economy? Are there any other countries who are engaged in socialist construction or whatever you would call it, but do not have a fundamentally socialist economy yet?


What was the cultural revolution in China specifically? Why was it so hated, why was it such a disaster?

File: 58837d671d897f7⋯.jpg (1.14 MB, 878x1275, 878:1275, It is Lenin.jpg)


Old thread: https://8ch.net/marx/res/4702.html

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

732 posts and 68 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



Well it depends. Stalin died in 1953 but the 20th Party Congress was in 1956, so it's entirely possible that someone could get in trouble during the first half of the decade.

But yeah as for getting in trouble for making jokes about Stalin after 1956, that I don't know. It'd presumably depend on the nature of the joke, e.g. if it could be construed as anti-Soviet rather than just merely poking fun at Stalin's expense.


The original Kronstadt garrison had been significantly depleted during the Civil War, and was replaced by sailors of peasant origin. These peasants-in-uniform resented the forced grain requisitioning the Bolsheviks enacted to feed the cities and prevent famine there.

As a result, they mutinied, demanding peasants' freedom of trade and other slogans. Counter-revolutionaries at home and abroad welcomed news of the mutiny and began making use of it. Because the mutiny threatened the defenses of Petrograd, Trotsky issued an ultimatum demanding the sailors surrender. When they refused, he ordered Tukhachevsky to march the Red Army across the ice, suppress the mutineers, and free the Bolshevik hostages they had taken.

Only two months after the mutiny was defeated, the mutineers' leader (Petrichenko) and others who escaped into exile offered their services to the White cause: "At the end of the month they wrote to Professor Grimm, Wrangel's representative in Helsingfors, and offered to join forces in a new campaign to unseat the Bolsheviks and restore 'the gains of the March 1917 Revolution.'" (Paul Avrich, Kronstadt 1921, p. 127) In other words, to restore the Provisional Government, although Avrich points out that Petrichenko and Co. even agreed to "a temporary military dictatorship" (under Wrangel) which shows how far they were willing to go to struggle against the Bolsheviks.

The Kronstadt mutiny reflected the disaffection of the peasants with War Communism. With the Civil Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at


when the topic of healthcare and education is bought up in regards to the USSR, it seems that the right has started to catch on and has made a counter-argument. this is that the quality of these things weren't actually very good. the general consesus they give is that Soviet healthcare wasn't anywhere near impressive standards, and suffered many problems. to quote what one anon said:

>Soviet hospital reality: crumbling hospitals, neglect, insane corruption, anti-sanitary conditions, abuse, shortages of basis stuff, hospital infections skyrocketing because there were reusable needles, you literally walked in with some minor problem and walked out with HIV and hepatitis and your problem in much worse condition.

seems very exgerrated, but is there some semblence of truth to it? i wouldn't be suprised if the USSR wasn't up to capitalist first-world standards, but how bad was it exactly? was it really just a mess of poor conditions, outdated equipment and medicine, and lackluster treatment? would you say for what they had to deal with i.e. take a backwater country and turn it into a modernised nuclear power in quite a quick timespan, the Soviets did pretty well in at least providing some kind of safety net for its citizens, even if it wasn't on par with say the U.S. and its hundreds of years of fertile land, technology, and not having to deal with war, sabotage, etc. at least the Soviets could provide something, while from my understanding you either pay a fuck ton of money or go without any sort of decent care in America. same goes for the education problem.

another question: why were Soviets, and by extent the rest of the Eastern Bloc, so concerned about not letting people leave? was it a genuine concern about sabotage and losing it's workforce, and what is a good way to debunk the whole "they kept them inside the country because they didn't want them to see true freedom".

were Soviets able to travel to other socialist countries, and vice versa? were the Chinese as restrictive (or still are) in regards to emigration?


When you say that economic problems of late USSR can be tracked back to Josef Stalin do you mean focus on heavy industry+large military spending+fear of small business (and two new ones like grain imports and debt)



> but is there some semblence of truth to it

Yes. Modern Russian hospsital, unfortunetly are like that.



>seems very exgerrated, but is there some semblence of truth to it? i wouldn't be suprised if the USSR wasn't up to capitalist first-world standards, but how bad was it exactly? was it really just a mess of poor conditions, outdated equipment and medicine, and lackluster treatment?

I recently did research into it, and yes, it seems true as far as being nowhere near western standards, with doctors who emmigrated to west needing re-education. As far as people walking out with HIV, I don't know. Ismail already posted a link to /r/askhistorains thread about soviet healthcare https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/73aiiu/what_was_healthcare_like_in_the_soviet_union/dnpb1um/ you might find something in the sources there.

I haven't done much research but Cuban healthcare seems not to be plagued with the problems USSR's had. Their life expectancy is the same as that of USA and unlike USSR's didn't fall without recovery. I haven't found any meaningfull sources that say they lie about their statistics. The most critical sources say they are lower than reported but nonetheless high. If I find something more I'll post here.

File: 8358eb8e9efe9ad⋯.gif (5.03 KB, 425x425, 1:1, exchange.gif)


Why does Marx state that a good cannot be exchanged until the good ceased to possess a use value for the one who is exchanging it? If I had a hammer and another person had a wrench, both of which possess utility for me and have use value, but I would want to exchange the hammer for the wrench because it is more useful to the projects that I want to complete.


> a good cannot be exchanged until the good ceased to possess a use value for the one who is exchanging it

He doesn't state that anywhere since it's obviously empirically false and logically absurd? Individuals can always exchange goods for any number of reasons but a goods "use value" is largly an indirect concern of capitalists since production is for exchange value. The exchange value of a commodity has to do with the socially necessary labour time for its current reproduction e.g. most consumer goods tend to get cheaper since the labour necessary to make them decreases over time. A "useless" object can command a high price or be totally worthless, except for the scrap metal, old paintings and such can get a big monopoly rent whereas old machinery doesn't as much.



I can't find the exact quote but Rudolf Hilferding made the same argument in his rebuttal to Böhm-Bawerk's critique:

"I do not exchange it until the moment arrives when it has ceased to possess a use value for me. This applies literally to the production of commodities in its developed form. Here the individual produces commodities of but one kind, commodities of which one specimen at most can possess a use value for him, whereas in the mass the commodities have for him no such use value. It is a precondition to the exchangeability of the commodities that they should possess utility for others, but since for me they are devoid of utility, the use value of my commodities is in no sense a measure even for my individual estimate of value, and still less is it a measure of an objective estimate of value."



I haven't read Hilferding. All I'll I'm making out is he's saying production doesn't generally occur for individual use under capitalism, commodities must have value emerging in a social process. No one produces thousands of shoes because they just want them.

File: 39333c4e02de75f⋯.jpg (158.48 KB, 1174x738, 587:369, bolshevik-jews.jpg)


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.


Ismail Edit: If you're a fascist and want to argue in favor of fascism and/or that Marxism is Jewish, keep all such discussion in this thread.

366 posts and 115 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
Post last edited at



You are a lying faggot. Just trying to spam Walls of Text to obfuscate the truth.

Here's the conclusion:

>OP: Jewish Bolshevism is a Myth

“The praesidium consisted of Sverdlov, Olminsky, Lomov, Yurenev, and Stalin. Even here, with the most prominent figures of Bolshevism absent, Stalin’s name is listed in last place. The Congress resolved to send greetings to ‘Lenin, Trotzky, Zinoviev, Lunacharsky, Kamenev, Kollontai, and all the others arrested and persecuted comrades.’ These were elected to the honorary praesidium.”

Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man and His Influence, by Lev Trotsky (translated by Charles Malamuth), Harper Bros., New York & London, 1941, page 217]

>Most prominent figures of Bolshevism:

Lenin (Jewish)

Trotzky (Jewish)

Zinoviev (Jewish)


Kamenev (Jewish)

Kollontai (Jewish)

Beg God for forgiveness.



>You are a lying faggot. Just trying to spam Walls of Text to obfuscate the truth.

Says the one spamming the same list over and over.



How do you not realize how ridiculous your argument is? Even if EVERY SINGLE MARXIST EVER was Jewish, and EVERYONE ELSE was not Jewish, AND there WAS NOT ONE SINGLE NON-MARXIST JEW, you STILL have not proven a link between Jewish-ness and Marxism--without this link it is just a coincidence. Of course, we all know you can't prove this link, because Marxism as a philosophy is totally opposed to religious thinking. The real question is why are you so desperate to prove this to yourself that you've taken to spamming a list Ismail already debunked?

sorry for boomer tier capital letters but these are brainlets we are dealing with



>Jewry is the mother of Marxism

I actually heard that Jesus Christ was a Jew. But wouldn't that mean... no, impossible! Could it be that Jewry is the mother of Christianity, and by proxy, Western European and American culture???

Also that image spelled David Mclellan's name wrong, lol. Full context from Karl Marx his life and thought:

Marx was all the more predisposed to take a critical look at society as he came from a milieu that was necessarily excluded from complete social participation. For it would be difficult to find anyone who had a more Jewish ancestry than Karl Marx.1 The name Marx is a shortened...

1 For detailed research on Marx's genealogy, see B. Wachstein, 'Die Abstammung von Marx'

Pretty weird how people of minority groups that are persecuted might lean towards a liberation philosophy. Nah it must be because of the Talmud, my bad



Side note for non-fascists, that same book on the very next page points out that Marx's father was not an orthodox Jew and actually had a pretty bad split with his family, which was Jewish

File: c370008c79c2a70⋯.jpg (92.05 KB, 474x687, 158:229, CapitalManga.jpg)


So I'm reading Karl Marx's Capital Volume One. I love it so far, and I agree with everything it says, including with the labor theory of value.

I'm curious though, how would I go about calculating the exact amount of value being created from labor power for each commodity?

And what tools and methodology would I use to measure said labor power and value?

In other words, what would the formula be for whatever amount of labor power translates whatever amount of value?

For example, if I was part of a mutual co-op, how would we go about dividing the money generated from the co-op amongst each-other in accordance to the exact amount of labor power we put in working there?

For the record, even if it turns out to be impossible to calculate the exact labor power to value ratio, or impossible to measure labor power at all, this doesn't make me any less convinced of the labor theory of value.

We know that it's correct because we can see it working within the capitalist economy, like how automation lessens the value of goods and services because they require less labor power, e.c.t.

Anyways, if you respond to this I will be incredibly grateful

Thanks :)


Oh, by the way, I didn't just read the manga

I decided to go through it before reading capital just to build up a general familiarity with Marx's concepts.

Obviously I prefer capital because it's a lot more detailed


If Ismail doesn't see this thread you could ask /r/communism101 or /leftypol/

File: 361ea4d25726d0c⋯.jpg (321.56 KB, 493x622, 493:622, Enver and Nexhmije Hoxha i….jpg)


Ask questions about Albania and/or Enver Hoxha here.

294 posts and 86 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



Not really. There weren't nomads in Albania, nor was Islam treated the same way as in Central Asia (fundamentalism wasn't much of an issue and there were significant Orthodox and Catholic communities.)

>How different was Hoxhas governorship, to say, leadership of Kyrgyzstan?

I don't really know how to answer that. That's like saying "how different was Honecker's leadership compared to the leadership of Byelorussian SSR."

They're two different things (one is a republic within a federation; the other is a fully independent state), under two different human beings.

Post last edited at


Are there any biographies on Hoxha available online?



No, there isn't really any in English with the exception of an anti-communist one that came out a few years ago by Blendi Fevziu and isn't very good.

If you have any questions about Hoxha, feel free to ask.



I'll bite. What did Hoxha do? I'm completely in the dark beyond hearing few people say Hoxha killed x millions of people like they say of every socialist leader. Anything to read about Albania in general?



He was a leader of Albania's struggle against fascist occupation, and once in power he presided over the construction of socialism. However, he never "de-Stalinized" his country (which resulted in stuff like abortion still being restricted and jazz being denounced), and ended up having a falling out with Khrushchev. He allied with Mao, denouncing the Soviets as "revisionist," "state capitalist," etc., and in the 60s he began a "Cultural and Ideological Revolution" which pretty much outlawed all forms of religious expression to the point of even private worship being severely discouraged.

The economic growth Albania had during the 1950s-70s thanks to Soviet and then Chinese assistance was ended following the split between Albania and China, which he also began denouncing as "revisionist," "state-capitalist," etc. (to the extent he declared that China never had a proletarian revolution and that Mao was racist against Europeans.)

So from 1978 onward Albania proclaimed itself the only country truly building socialism in the world, and there were pro-Albanian parties abroad praising him. Albania itself was largely isolated from the rest of Europe and Hoxha's policy of "self-reliance" failed to sustain the economy, which worsened during the 80s. Also, as part of not "de-Stalinizing" Albania, disputes among party leaders were resolved by Hoxha's opponents being denounced as foreign spies and shot all the way into the 80s.

The policies that specifically distinguish Hoxha from other socialist leaders (banning of religion, defying post-Stalin reforms in Eastern Europe, isolating his country, building bunkers to help portray Albanians as in a state of siege from external enemies, his conception of self-reliance, etc.) were not good and contributed to there being relatively little pro-communist sentiment in Albania today compared to nearby countries.

>Anything to read about Albania in general?

* https://drive.google.com/open?id=19wEDFgz3BPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

File: 760be99a6fcf8a2⋯.jpeg (61.07 KB, 471x704, 471:704, 67E6E53E-5579-461B-91D8-5….jpeg)


Can someone recommend me some ML literature? Essentials?

I am extremely into Che and Fidel if that helps

81 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



goddamit I'll add them tomorrow. I didn't do the scanning all at once so I guess I missed a little


File: 1884bdc6c65b736⋯.jpg (1.88 MB, 2480x3408, 155:213, SCAN0217.JPG)

File: c7020cb87a7d4ed⋯.jpg (2.03 MB, 2480x3408, 155:213, SCAN0218.JPG)

File: 04264bf6e0ac0c9⋯.jpg (1.98 MB, 2480x3408, 155:213, SCAN0219.JPG)


If you have the capacity, here are the pages I missed and you can add them. Otherwise I'll remake the PDF on Friday.



Yeah you'll have to remake the PDF. Once that's done I can put it on archive.org




It looks good. I've duly uploaded it: https://archive.org/details/DeGaulleMolchanov

File: c7257ef46e5ec2d⋯.jpg (104.24 KB, 680x908, 170:227, present and past.jpg)


Hey guys what do you think about it ?


It's pretty silly, e.g.

>strong supporter of nuclear arms

The Soviets advocated world disarmament as early as the 1920s and likewise sought to limit nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War.

>believes in a strong police force

To quite Mike Davidow, a communist journalist who spent years in the USSR:

>The use of force by the militia is strictly limited. They carry no clubs. Those who direct traffic employ a lightweight baton, which is never used as a weapon. Some years ago, clubs were issued to militiamen but practice showed they were unnecessary. Under no circumstances are militiaman permitted to beat a prisoner, even if he is resisting arrest. Militiamen do carry small pistols but they are largely for purposes of warning in cases of danger. A militiamen may use his gun only when he is confronted with armed attack and the lives of other citizens are also endangered, and only after he has exhausted all other means of subduing a criminal. Even under these circumstances, he must first fire a warning shot in the air. Even after this fails to eliminate the danger, the militiaman must not shoot to kill. He can shoot only to wound in the leg or arm. And under no circumstance — even if facing personal danger from an armed adversary — may a militiaman use his gun against anyone under 16, or a woman.

The Soviets condemned the American police as infested with racists and as utilizing brutal methods.

>thinks drug users/dealers should be shot without trial

That isn't how the Soviets handled drug addicts.

>thinks feminism divides the nation and working class

In the sense that feminism was used as a shorthand for bourgeois women's rights movements, it was criticized. That didn't prevent the USSR from stuff like seeking quotas for employing women in politics and in the workforce, or stating in the 1936 ConstitPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


One of several shitty attempts for reactionaries to co-opt socialist history anf strawman contemporary socialism (which is not to say there arent terrible elements within contemporary socialism, especially western red-liberalism)



I wouldn't be surprised if it was made as a joke. Complaining that American communists "oppose 'imperialist' wars in the middle east" is bizarre even by "socialist" reactionary standards, as if a Soviet Union existing in the 2000s would support George W. Bush's foreign policy.


>The Soviets advocated world disarmament as early as the 1920s and likewise sought to limit nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War.

Sounds interesting, Could you give sources for both eras(1920, and Cold War)

>That isn't how the Soviets handled drug addicts.

How did USSR handle drug traders and drug addicts?

>That didn't prevent the USSR from stuff like seeking quotas for employing women in politics and in the workforce

I'd imagine https://archive.org/details/SovietWomen is the source, right?



>Could you give sources for both eras(1920, and Cold War)

1920s: https://archive.org/details/sovietunionandpe031949mbp (specifically Part III of the book)

Cold War: https://archive.org/details/TheUnbrokenRecord

>How did USSR handle drug traders and drug addicts?

I'd imagine drug traders were arrested. Addicts were to be rehabilitated (although the actual facilities for rehabilitating them were often very poorly-equipped.)

>I'd imagine https://archive.org/details/SovietWomen is the source, right?

Yes. Obviously it isn't the only source on the planet concerning women in the USSR, but I consider it the most useful introductory work on the subject.

File: 5ff435c86603caa⋯.jpg (52.84 KB, 700x467, 700:467, person looking at stars.jpg)


I've been interested in the theories of Karl Marx for quite a bit of time and recently I've actually become a marxist. However, I've also been embroiled in an existential crisis for a long time.

Whenever I've learned something new about marxism or marxist history or anything at all really, I've accepted the information. However, I've always felt myself quietly doubting everything I've learned, and I don't mean that I just doubted whether the information came from a reliable source, I mean I doubted whether any information that I gain is just a delusion or something I've concocted in my head. Maybe I'm a brain in a vat. This is just my experience, but most of you here have probably had these thoughts but probably have been smart enough to come up with answers or have found an answer in a 200 year old book by some old German guy.

TL;DR: How do I know anything is real? What do I use to work out what is real and what is not?


>How do I know anything is real? What do I use to work out what is real and what is not?

You might be interested in this: https://archive.org/details/CornforthTheoryOfKnowledge

File: ce462a11fc62435⋯.png (283.66 KB, 530x570, 53:57, porky boomer.png)


"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 Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


No, I think the generational conflicts both now and then were manufactured. Remember what I said about lack of direction crippling a lot of 60s activists? Well, I think that’s true now too; look at the pathetic state of movements like Occupy Wall Street or whatever the party/org/LARP troupe du jour is. From what I’ve seen, modern movements suffer greatly from a lack of experienced leadership, a role that would be best suited for… Boomers! So, who wants to sow discord between Boomers and Millenials? The very people that radical movements threaten: the bourgeoisie, the state, the FBI; the ones who actually are The Man.

Now, I have the suspicion that this last part will be met with significant skepticism. Surely the FBI didn’t make that dumb wojak? We know that the US government made use of “radical” elements to suppress communist movements in the 1960s (see: postmodernism). And we know that the Internet is extremely vulnerable to state intervention, both because of the increased anonymity inherent to the medium and because of ties between the state and platforms like Facebook and Twitter. I don’t think it’s at all implausible that our enemies are acting through the insidious stupidity of 4chan.

But even if you don’t believe that hating Boomers is a deliberate ploy to weaken radical movements, it weakens them anyway, and the only thing worse than someone who gets a paycheck from the FBI is someone who does their work for free.


Special thanks to /cuttlefish_btc from Twitter, whose thread on this phenomenon in the 1960s inspired me to write this.

(This is a crosspost from /leftypol/ btw, I know this place is a lot less active and is more of a Q&A type board but the intelligence of the average poster seems higher here so maybe I'll get better discussion.)


Boomers who are proles and thus much more likely Left-Wing tended to die of much sooner then then the Petite boug / bougie who could afford to deal with any health or financial issue he had because he got some ez job siting at a desk in the box factory his father owned

This is why the seemingly massive reactionary tilt of boomers is a thing

"If your not a leftist by the time your 20 you've got no heart if your still a leftist by 60 congratulatins it's a miracle you did not die of a heart attack"


The best way to look at boomers is they are the children of a war torn class of people and thus had traumatic childhoods, into a world where America had bombed everyone else into the stone age, who then get taken advantage of by psychological warfare by foreign countries, e.g. the Hippies being a result of Russian Ideological Subjugation, that turns them into absolute garbage and today they're trying to understand how the world went to hell in a hand basket on their watch.


>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.

There's a bit of a bourgeois tilt among the old because poor people tend to die earlier another poster mentioned, but yeah.


>Now, I have the suspicion that this last part will be met with significant skepticism. Surely the FBI didn’t make that dumb wojak? We know that the US government made use of “radical” elements to suppress communist movements in the 1960s (see: postmodernism).

I read some rant on a blog or Twitter claiming that Harvey Ball designed the iconic smiley button in the 60s to counter the peace-symbol buttons and that Ball had even written a strategy letter to some government agency. Don't know if that's true.

The dumb anti-boomer meme also exists in Europe. My personal conspiracy theory is that a big pusher behind this are those who would benefit from privatized pension schemes becoming more widespread and austerity mongers in general. Current austerity is "explained" by running out of financial resources because older generations didn't save up enough. What makes perfect sense when talking about a family is absolute nonsense when talking about society at large, but few people know that. Humanity as a whole isn't in debt. Humanity as a whole can always afford what it produces, financially at least. Instead of looking at the existing capacity and what can be done with it, people are urged to not even think about that and just be angry at grandpa. As if that solved anything.

<See, you suffer now because the old generation wasn't responsible. Be responsible and don't be a parasite on later generations by saving up now with this sparkling new private pension scheme.

File: 14d6031b7e45fed⋯.jpg (296.96 KB, 1715x2560, 343:512, 81StBjlFTfL.jpg)


"It is well known that nothing of the "iron law of wages" is Lassalle's except the word "iron" borrowed from Goethe's "great, eternal iron laws". [1] The word "iron" is a label by which the true believers recognize one another. But if I take the law with Lassalle's stamp on it, and consequently in his sense, then I must also take it with his substantiation for it. And what is that? As Lange already showed, shortly after Lassalle's death, it is the Malthusian theory of population (preached by Lange himself). But if this theory is correct, then again I cannot abolish the law even if I abolish wage labor a hundred times over, because the law then governs not only the system of wage labor but every social system. Basing themselves directly on this, the economists have been proving for 50 years and more that socialism cannot abolish poverty, which has its basis in nature, but can only make it general, distribute it simultaneously over the whole surface of society!"

I don't really understand what Marx is saying here. Does anyone have way to explain it in less archaic terms?

4 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


>being this big of a retard




No problem.

I actually asked someone recently to scan a Soviet book explaining Marx's Critique and providing context to stuff, including the "iron law of wages." They should have it scanned within the next two weeks.



That Soviet booklet is now online. The scan quality leaves something to be desired, but it's readable: https://archive.org/details/MarxsCritiqueGotha


Would appreciate if this paragraph could be explained:

Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.



The following is my interpretation, so if there's a better way of explaining it then I wouldn't be surprised.

Marx is pointing out that under socialism people don't exchange commodities between each other, e.g. the worker doesn't sell his labor-power to a capitalist in order to obtain wages by which he can buy commodities sold by another capitalist. Hence Marx's subsequent words:

>[The producer] receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

>Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption.

Products under socialism are created not based on their exchange-value (as they are under capitalism), but based on their use-value, and therefore are priced by society based on a calculation of its own needs, as opposed to capitalism where the law of value regulates production and can create situations where producers (already burdened by part of the value they create being appropriated by the capitalist) cannot (or just barely) afford products put on the market by individual sellers.

The law of value instead has a different function under socialism: "after the abolition of the capitalist mode of production, but still retaining social production, the determination of value continues to prevail in the sense that the regulation of labour-time and the distribution of social labour among the various production groups, ultimately the book-keeping encompassing all this, become morPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at

File: 027fb26e8521f17⋯.jpg (61.51 KB, 450x450, 1:1, IMG_2409.jpg)


I'm aware of all the arguments that it never works in practice, but in theory what's wrong with it.

The idea that the economic sphere is not and should not be treated as the private sphere. That property freedom is actually no freedom at all

because one's property freedom is necessarily the enslavement of others. Seems pretty convincing to me.

Any introductory rebuttals to this aspect of Marxism ?

The French Revolution release of energy of French people that allowed for the occupation of about half of Europe. The French monarchy did not have such strength.

The Bolshevik revolution allowed for the industrialization of the USSR and introduction of universal health care , universal education , elimination of analphabetism.

Israel which is much less conservative , traditional country than his Arabian neighbours? It is a much more effective country than neighbors, or Japan

during Meji revolution after overthrow of shogunate .

Like everybody see the revolution is a useful tool for progress. It is necessary to eradicate superstitious , backward , traditional society.

12 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



>German Ideology in chapter on communism.

That work praises communism for developing individual talent and personality:

"Erst in der Gemeinschaft [mit Andern hat jedes] Individuum die Mittel, seine Anlagen nach allen Seiten hin auszubilden; erst in der Gemeinschaft wird also die persönliche Freiheit möglich. In den bisherigen Surrogaten der Gemeinschaft, im Staat usw. existierte die persönliche Freiheit nur für die in den Verhältnissen der herrschenden Klasse entwickelten Individuen und nur, insofern sie Individuen dieser Klasse waren. Die scheinbare Gemeinschaft, zu der sich bisher die Individuen vereinigten, verselbständigte sich stets ihnen gegenüber und war zugleich, da sie eine Vereinigung einer Klasse gegenüber einer andern war, für die beherrschte Klasse nicht nur eine ganz illusorische Gemeinschaft, sondern auch eine neue Fessel. In der wirklichen Gemeinschaft erlangen die Individuen in und durch ihre Assoziation zugleich ihre Freiheit.

Es geht aus der ganzen bisherigen Entwicklung hervor, daß das gemeinschaftliche Verhältnis, in das die Individuen einer Klasse traten und das durch ihre gemeinschaftlichen Interessen gegenüber einem Dritten bedingt war, stets eine Gemeinschaft war, der diese Individuen nur als Durchschnittsindividuen angehörten, nur soweit sie in den Existenzbedingungen ihrer Klasse lebten, ein Verhältnis, an dem sie nicht als Individuen, sondern als Klassenmitglieder teilhatten. Bei der Gemeinschaft der revolutionären Proletarier dagegen, die ihre und aller Gesellschaftsmitglieder Existenzbedingungen unter ihre Kontrolle nehmen, ist es gerade umgekehrt; an ihr nehmen die Individuen als Individuen Anteil."

MEW vol 3, pages 74 and 75

>Scientific progress and I am talking about real paradigms shifts is essentially competitive

That's just plain bourg ideology on your part and it doesn't get any better by repetition.



In a society which fully understand idea of communism , each individual will intuitively know what to do and where to go

to enter into resonance with another unit that is able to provide it (whether it's a service or a good). There will be no currency in this a society. Everyone will do

what he is passionate about and excitement. For example, one person is passionate about producing healthy food and other person is passionate about producing

tools for the production of this food. Some of them will satisfy the needs of others without the need for money. In our present society, this solution exists

partly among passionate people. The one who lives with passion and excitement will notice the same as "things" always happen in the right place and time, and one

does not have to strain too much to live in abundance.

Unfortunately, today's society is dominated by the desire to dominate and having more than others. This creates a hierarchy and social problems .People want to

fight against it by changing the rulers, blaming the rich, etc. Unfortunately, nothing can be done in this way. Let changes take place

they must occur at the level of the individual and then at the level of the collective.


File: ca0da9fc45755dc⋯.jpeg (93.49 KB, 900x750, 6:5, qwe_download.jpeg)


*Breathes in*

Fucking ethics nigga, what is it?



I just want to challenge the status quo and I see that scares some people.

Especially /po/tards that think they know some deep secret about the world being controlled by leftists when in reality they are capitalist puppets jut lashing out at folks trying to actually implement the radical transformation they can barely conceptualise let alone critique coherently.


The problem with communism is the 2nd internatinal that read Marx as a religious text that had to be implemented rather than a brilliant tool for analysing the actual real world situation and acting accordingly.

File: f9a8bd80df64e7f⋯.png (43.05 KB, 180x192, 15:16, 180px-Coat_of_Arms_of_Demo….png)


There is a lot of talk on internet basketweaving board about the USSR, China, even Venezuela and Cuba, but Yugoslavia is seldomly mentioned. This is why I think this thread is needed.

In the 90s everything from the socialist era disappeared for a bit, but it was not erased. And after 2008 old literature came back again and lots of study has been dedicated to the Yugoslav socialist experience - by a new generation, not old commies. Even a political party in Slovenia, fueled by marxism, entered parliament. Since then they watered down their ideology and rhetoricis, but still.

Yugoslavia followed USSR after ww2 until 1948, but then they started their own path of socialist self-management. They also let in the market which eventually brought a downfall and it is an important lesson learned.

Am gmt+1, so will be answering mostly during when its day here.

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



https://b-ok.cc/book/3599352/ca764c ("Yugoslavia: Socialism, Development and Debt")

https://b-ok.cc/book/1193069/dc9d06 ("Socialist Unemployment - The Political Economy of Yugoslavia, 1945-1990")

There are numerous other books that aren't online, e.g. Howard Lydell's "Yugoslav Socialism: Theory and Practice," Russinow's "The Yugoslav Experiment, 1948-74," etc.

One online source I always bring up though, for those wanting an intro to how the system worked and its problems, are chapters 6 and 7 of the following: https://archive.org/details/ClassStruggleInSocialistPoland/page/n171



Branko Horvat, Towards a Theory of Planned Economy. Yugoslav Institute of Economic Research: Belgrade, 1964.

Gal Kirn's PhD (especially part III): http://www.ung.si/~library/doktorati/interkulturni/21Kirn.pdf

Lev Centrih - The Road to Collapse - https://arhiv.rosalux.rs/en/artikl.php?id=410

A few books by French marxist economist Catherine Sammary: http://csamary.free.fr/csamary/Accueil.html, especially Plan, Market and Democracy - https://www.scribd.com/document/110110723/Catherine-Samary-Plan-Market-and-Democracy-1988-NSR-N-7-8



I believe the "Austro-Hungarianism was actually Ebic :D" Stuff that reactionary Croats and Slovenes talk about has a lot to do with the belief that if A-H won WW1 it either would have had to either reform into a Federation / Confederation (Which was already being proposed) to save the empire or would still collapse and give Croatia independence

Either way they viewed it as a tool to gain an independent reactionary Slovene / Croatian state



How do you feel about Levica?

Can they be trusted?

Also, what is situation with Rog factory currently - do you predict the users or city will win?

Are there any more problems with fascists after last attack?



Nah. A bit over a hundred people were forced out of the party in 2016 when the merger into Levica happened. Those were the actual socialists. The ones that remain are left-liberal scumbags that wanna have a political career. They have no more people on the ground.

Already in 2014 lots of University professors resigned because the IDS deided to participate in EU elections - those people were the theoretical backbone of IDS.

They are "pro-worker" yet they get the most votes in Ljubljana from rich liberals.

In Rog the city will win, unless the current residents make a truce with the municipality in a way that will turn Rog into a for-profit hipster location. Things are pretty calm there right now.

Delete Post [ ]
Previous [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
| Catalog | Nerve Center | Cancer
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ausneets / b2 / dempart / doomer / leftyb / monarchy / vg / vichan ]