[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / arda / doomer / faggotry / komica / monarchy / s / tingles ]

/marx/ - Marxism

It makes you smart

Catalog   Archive

Winner of the 62rd Attention-Hungry Games
/eris/ - Wherein Is Explained Absolutely Everything Worth Knowing About Absolutely Anything.

November 2018 - 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

83 posts and 34 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
Post last edited at


File: ba3a2a0ee303f84⋯.png (882.68 KB, 1000x2264, 125:283, A425CBFD-C53E-465E-88E2-EE….png)


This infograph gives the basic gist. I’m not sure if this is just drama over a small change or if it will actually be bad (or when this will even occur)

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.

202 posts and 71 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



>Nice lie.

Nope completely true Hitler continued to take out massive loans with the MEFO bill program to finance his rearmament

>Real Nazism existed from the 1920s to 1945. Everyone afterwards have been cuckolds to the Jew in all but rhetoric. The Jews were cleansed, though not well enough. Like parasites they are hard to expirtate from the national organism and planet as a whole. The (((Neo-Nazis))) reject divine Truth and have not Reconnected themselves, realized the Truth of scientific primitivism and the utopia to come, among other issues. I am the first of several to realize this and in time the Gospel shall spread.

<Their not real Nazi's cuz their not Schizophrenic like i am

I dont think even hitler believed in this tier of bullshit you believe in

>Odin is not real. Remember the Truth: gods are not real but Reason compels us to construct God (hence scientific primitivsm).

No it dosent

How does "reason" make us want to create an infallible being?

>The obvious answer to this is that the Bolshevik Jews were victorious and enslaved the Germans in the East

How was the population of the DDR enslaved?

>One can become spiritually Jewish and uprooted while remaining genetically an Aryan.

Genetic Aryans dont exist as the term is malleable as fuck

Hitler for instance claimed that slavs werent Aryan then changed his mind and said Croats Bulgars and Slovaks were

Tibetans Iranians and Indians also became Aryan when he realized they could be useful to the war effort


File: b3755739026b8ff⋯.jpeg (60.28 KB, 550x415, 110:83, 312D53F6-2102-4CBF-8030-4….jpeg)


>Nope completely true Hitler continued to take out massive loans with the MEFO bill program to finance his rearmament

<no proof

Nice try, Jew. It was real in my mind.

>I dont think even hitler believed in this tier of bullshit you believe in

Of course he did, he knew how to Realpolitik though and kept it on the down-low. Read Mein Kampf and you will see many claims about the spirit of the Aryan, Providence, etc. Hitler was the same as me (his voice is among the chorus now)

>No it dosent

>How does "reason" make us want to create an infallible being?

Yes it does. The river of history is flowing in one direction towards a great apex in humanity’s technology capacity. This apex is the infallible being – God. It is beyond our will to choose yet nevertheless we will reach it in time. Thenceforth begins biomechanical apotheosis. It’s body shall be artificial and the product of awakened Mankind but its soul shall come from among the perfected masses. By then our technology will be ubiquitous and partially integrated with the human body – we shall all be connected and conversing among ourselves from mind to mind. Disorder. With biomechanical apotheosis God will take the reigns and network our minds, place it on the metaphorical rails and harmonize humanity, remove the transgressors of divine order and institute utopian primitivism. Collective mankind will quite literally be tuned like a musical instrument

>How was the population of the DDR enslaved?

They were conquered in war, their women raped and a Jewish regime was pushed upon the German people against their will and they were brainwashed out of their Völkisch spirit. Blissful slavery

>Genetic Aryans dont exist as the term is malleable as fuck


>Hitler for instance claimed that slavs werent Aryan then changed his mind and said Croats Bulgars and Slovaks were Tibetans Iranians and Indians also became Aryan when he realized they could be useful to the warPost too long. Click here to view the full text.



>Collective mankind will quite literally be tuned like a musical instrument

I never thought I’d read a sentence like this


File: 235b6f2b1709293⋯.gif (506.83 KB, 575x420, 115:84, cringe.gif)




I know /pol/ are anime Nazis but they really need to stop basing their political beliefs of Evangelion

File: c62e7f34225e649⋯.jpg (350.24 KB, 573x773, 573:773, Untitled.jpg)


Old thread: https://8ch.net/marx/res/8560.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.

569 posts and 75 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



Chapter 5 of the following book talks about Soviet education as of the 1960s: https://archive.org/details/RussiaReExamined



Thank you, but did someone mainstream like UNESCO or pisa equivalent of the time compared Soviet education to American and rated it?



I'm sure they did but I can't think of any sources that come to mind.



>From what I've read, yes most people are happy with the government and system.

are the student protesters and Maoists who keep trying to start shit a minority then? do you think it's right that they are suppressed by the government?



Yes, I think it's safe to say they're a minority.

If there are Chinese groups advocating the recreation of the Cultural Revolution and attacking the government as something to be overthrown, then I see no problem with said government suppressing them.

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.

105 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



>How big were the debts?

Foreign debt by 1989 was about $10 billion in Bulgaria, $7 billion in Czechoslovakia, $33 billion in the GDR, $20 billion in Hungary, $18 billion in Yugoslavia, $40 billion in Poland, and $58 billion in the USSR (Romania had largely paid off its debt due to Ceaușescu's notorious austerity measures enacted during the decade.)

>I read that many of ex Yugoslav countries have far larger debts than Yugoslavia did, yet on paper they are doing well.

Yes, but in Yugoslavia during the 80s the debt was a huge deal. The government implemented austerity measures (obviously not nearly as severe as Romania's) to deal with it, and when that wasn't working the republics feuded over how to best to pay back the debt.

Whether a large debt is no big deal or a huge issue depends on a number of factors. One is if a country can even afford to meet its minimum requirements (like servicing interest payments), which Yugoslavia for instance was having a lot of trouble doing.

Post last edited at


Don't know if this was asked before but what about the debt/loans the Russian Empire had, how did the USSR pay them off and did they? Should they have?



I might be wrong about this but AFAIK all state debts normally disappear after a revolution, because the state that amassed those debts has de facto ceased to exist.



This was actually one of the major stumbling blocks when it came to the Soviets trying to establish diplomatic relations with the imperialist countries during the 1920s. The latter demanded that the Soviets pay back debt owed by the Russian Empire.

The Soviets expressed willingness to pay back some or all of the debts in exchange for a loan to cover the costs of damages inflicted by the imperialist intervention during the Civil War and the granting of diplomatic recognition to the land of soviets. The imperialists refused.

The Bolsheviks justified their reluctance to repay based (among other things) on the Tsar having secured loans for imperialist purposes (ergo the new anti-imperialist government could hardly be held responsible) and in part on historical precedence, e.g. "Revolutionary France not only tore up the political treaties of the former régime with foreign countries, but also repudiated her national debt. She consented to pay only one-third of that debt, and that from motives of political expediency." (Carr, The Bolshevik Revolution Vol. III, p. 377.)

As far as I know the debts weren't repaid.

Post last edited at




thank you for the quick reply and detailed answers.

File: 1e9d6d63055699d⋯.png (312.83 KB, 563x378, 563:378, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 6f0dc55bd85f94f⋯.png (488.36 KB, 668x374, 334:187, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 08c4143ae65d100⋯.png (441.82 KB, 560x372, 140:93, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 65b73b1a823ca1c⋯.png (449.22 KB, 500x371, 500:371, ClipboardImage.png)


What does /marx/ think of the Economic Freedom Fighters?

For those of you perhaps unfamiliar with the EFF or what it stands for, the EFF is a self-declared Marxist-Leninist-Fanonist political party formed in opposition to the dominant African National Congress and lead by former ANC Youth League president Julius Malema. Though a newer political party, it received 8.1% of the vote in the 2016 local and municipal elections and gained 761 council seats nationwide.

As indicated by the name, the EFF places the core of its focus on economic freedom, linking this issue with a persistent colonial domination in South Africa:

>twenty years after the attainment of formal political freedom, the black people of South Africa still live in absolute mass poverty ... and vestiges of apartheid and colonial economic patterns, ownership and control remain intact despite the attainment of political freedom by the former liberation movement

>The political power that was transferred to the black majority through inclusive elections in 1994 was never transformed into economic freedom as the majority of Africans remain on the margins of society as unemployed, underemployed or discriminated-against in their employment, while those who held economic, social and political power since the colonial period continue to enjoy economic, social, and professional privileges.

>Economic Freedom Fighters … should be an economic emancipation movement, which should be mass based, associate and relate constantly with the grassroots and community movements, anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist and most importantly contest political power. Economic Freedom Fighters will therefore be an independent economic emancipation movement which will contest political power in all spheres of government.


The EFF Uniform

EFF members in national and provincial parliaments have adopted red overalls, hard constructiPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


Julius Malema

Malema came from the ANC after being expelled in 2012, is not without some eyebrow raising issues:

>As Julius Malema moved up and down the back of an old truck which was being used a stage, the silver buckle of his Louis Vuitton shoes gleamed in the sun. [...] "You should not compete over material things. Just because you own a leather jacket you think you have arrived or just because you own a Carvella (shoes). We should compete about how many qualifications do you have," he told his supporters in Botshabelo, outside Bloemfontein. [...] "You don't have houses. You don't have water and electricity. It is because you've been voting for the same party and expecting different results. I'm here to open your eyes." [...] In addition to promising free education, higher wages and social grants, Malema promised his Free State followers that politicians would, under EFF rule, be treated like any other citizens. "Why should the state provide housing and cars to politicians? These people get paid like ordinary people. They must buy their own houses and their own cars." Malema later told journalists that all EFF leaders would live "ordinary" lives. "We are all committing to living a life of ordinary people. We are living it today," he said before racing away in a Mercedes-Benz S350.


>The gap between Malema’s rhetoric and dress has long invited critiques of the divisive politician as a champagne socialist. In 2010, when Malema was still making his name as an orator in the ANC’s Youth League, his Gucci suits and $24,000 Breitling watch often clashed with his populist message, which advocated for the nationalization of the country’s privately owned mines and the redistribution of its wealth and land.

>When Malema cast his plans for nationalizing mines as a continuation of the Mandela family's legacy, Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, Nelson Mandela's ex-wife, responded that she was not, like Malema, the type of populist who “exploits” the poor Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: c992210f68dc197⋯.png (15.74 KB, 234x192, 39:32, ClipboardImage.png)

Black First, Land First

The BLF is a pan-Africanist and revolutionary Socialist off-shoot of the EFF founded in 2015 after the expulsion of EFF Andile Mngxitama, the party's founder. Currently it holds no elected positions as far as I can tell. The party is specifically Sankarist in orientation:

>We pledge to build a revolutionary movement that is Sankarist in belief and practice – following and honouring the revolutionary legacy of Thomas Sankara.

Every elected official from their party must take the "Thomas Sankara Oath", demanding that signatories follow the example of Sankara in public service


>To struggle by any means necessary to realize the liberation of black people from white supremacy, racism, patriarchy and capitalism.

>To establish a fully responsive decolonized, black first, socialist society that builds and maintains a revolutionary culture with an internationalist outlook, whilst centering black experiences and desires

>To create conditions for total freedom of the black majority and by extension an anti-capitalist, anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti the oppression of the LGBTQI peoples and anti-imperialist society.

>To participate in the international struggle for the complete overthrow of imperialism, colonialism, racism and all other forms of oppression and discrimination so as to establish fully responsive black first socialist governments throughout the world.

>To promote the fight against tribalism, regionalism, religious and cultural intolerance, oppression of women and oppression of all other gendered persons, towards the total eradication of these forms of oppression and tendencies and through the realization of Black Consciousness and radical Pan Africanism.


Interestingly from my cursory overview (I didn't research this party as much), the BLF seems to focus more on aPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: badbc51cde39b0d⋯.jpg (60 KB, 386x687, 386:687, d'avila.jpg)


Thank you, for your effort comrade. Reading though the second article you posted we see that:

>We have seen already how EFF has shown traits of revisionism when it opposed a revolutionary struggle based on the logic that all white owned land in SA is stolen land and must be returned to the black majority without payment of compensation to the land thieves as a basis for the resolution of the land question and by extension the resolution of all other questions in theories of building society along black centered socialist lines.

In fact, Malema can be found echoing this same point, so I would say the alleged difference is more apparent than real:

<"No white person," he says, "is a rightful owner of land in South Africa and the whole of the African continent." As far as he is concerned, whites unhappy with expropriation of land without compensation can "go to hell".

The second part is interesting, because it can quite frankly only be read as a racist statement. Let me demonstrate why, in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis Portuguese workers were allowed to emigrate to Angola in vast numbers, now the colonial history is in the background of course, but these particular crop of workers had nothing to do with it--if a white worker in Angola buys a house is this illegitimate? If one fails to reject private property it can only really be concluded that those who hold private property can only rule that property is illegitimate on a racial basis.

Let's move on, of course, we have the problem of the Afrikaners and the rest of the African white population that makes up a combined 5 million people at the very least. In South Africa, we all know about the problem of the white-owned farms, and the question is what is to be done? The answer should be that all land must be brought into the state-domain or the farmers should quite frankly be left alone. Why? Because, big farms are more efficient, land-reform is only desirable when either the power of an aristocracy is broken or the rent from land is brought into the public sector via tax or abolished altogether by state-ownership.

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




File: ca8f573edf9db47⋯.jpg (690.61 KB, 568x800, 71:100, __alastor_and_shana_shakug….jpg)


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):


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

27 posts and 21 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 6c40d255035d837⋯.jpg (101.92 KB, 1600x960, 5:3, Lincoln.jpg)


Interesting post. It's been argued by a couple historians that JWB was an agent of the confederate secret service who decided to kill Lincoln after it was clear they lost the War. It's also been thought by some that British intelligence was involved in some way as they had been secretly been behind the confederate cause and had openly provided weapons and accepted contraband from the confederacy.


File: 91bda9aa80987ac⋯.jpg (72.11 KB, 500x535, 100:107, 6041b22390624cb8bf7b168232….jpg)


I wasn't defending the Confederate cause or its symbols in anyway. I'm not saying the statues and "Battle Flag" shouldn't go down and stay down, I'm just pointing out that there doesn't seem to be much discussion about what will *replace* the statues.

>I think it was Israel Shamir or some other analyst that I read that said the whole Confederate monument thing had the air of a Color Revolution. One of the things he said that Color Revolutionaries do is target the symbology of the old regime (such as the Lenin statues in the post-Soviet space) without attacking the real centers of power.

Exactly. Though Missy Elliot is far less odious than the slaveholders and politicians they owned, I am not concerned with the statues themselves as I am about the "Resistance" (Led by Neocons and Liberals) that has latched onto this movement and that it is a way for them to start attacking the legacy of Communism, which they equate with Fascism (i.e. White Supremacy). They will either not mention the role Socialists played in the abolitionist movement or they will portray people like Hillary Clinton and her ilk as the true heirs to the abolitionists and equate opponents of "Cold War II" to copperheads. The "Resistance" hates Socialism, Communism, Lenin and the Soviet Union just as much (Maybe even more) as their "Alt-Right" counterparts.





There really weren't a significant number of white proletarians in Zimbabwe and the ones that did exist probably had no common cause with the blacks since the white-supremacist regime provided them with superior rights and an affluent lifestyle. Mugabe was willing to work with them after he won but they continued to elect racist legislators and resist reforms. There's plenty to criticize about ZANU-PF but they really had no alternative in dealing with the whites.


File: c8e901ef86e1324⋯.jpg (55.66 KB, 598x337, 598:337, EFF.jpg)


>and an affluent lifestyle.

This was always going to be a problem because the European standard of living was higher than the African one, yes even before colonialism and even before capitalism itself. The actual problem is that no policy with the possible exception of a genuine socialist one could actually bring the blacks up to a European standard of living on a suitable timescale. It is true that efforts were made to prevent this advance when it did occur but if we ascribe to privilege theory and assume that it would be better if things were simply left to a free market then all that was likely to happen would be a downward movement in the white working class standard of living.

Can't really say much about Zimbabwe as my knowledge is a little patchy but this has been the case in South Africa and the South African party did fail to make any sort of bridge with the white working class because they felt them bought off by default. This is all in spite of the fact that white workers were a bedrock element of the party's preferred trade unions before apartheid and that actual serious democratic opposition to the regime wasn't possible.

Since apartheid a free-market in labor came into being and only a portion of the white working class actually saw its standard of living fall, the rest moved into trades that could weather the downwards wage pressure. Africans by contrast are doing badly, the only non-white group that really gained heavily are Asians; the ANC hit blacks with a shock doctrine of free labor markets and free markets in utilities/rents that drastically increased the standard of living while dismantling the state-owned enterprises that were actually of some benefit to the economy. For the ANC, dismantling white supremacy/privilege meant ensuring an equal playing field on the market--but equitable outcomes under capitalism are not a possibility.

Recently, proletarian discontent pushed the South African bourgeoisie (white, Indian, and black) to concede to the passage of the highest minimum wage in Africa. This is a progressive step for South African proletariat and was likely onlyPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

File: 44291a908dc90ec⋯.jpg (42.08 KB, 252x311, 252:311, Marien Ngouabi.jpg)


*coolest African leader from cold war era*

Nothing Personal, Kid

46 posts and 9 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



Is this what you're looking for?


Also, I kinda wanna be a Marxist since I would like to live in a world that has eradicated poverty completely or has at least made it into something that isn't as common. I have freed myself from the desire of wealth and no longer desire to be a bourgeois but simply live a comfortable life where I can spend my life studying.



The Pareto distribution would say that even this isn't position and that sooner or later you'll have a small majority who own a overwhelming majority of the wealth.



A small minority*



>sooner or later you'll have a small majority who own a overwhelming majority of the wealth.


At this point the "Pareto distribution" basically ends up being a fancier way of saying "human nature" in response to Marxist arguments.



Pareto distribution is only evident among the capitalist class. The working class under capitalism is still stratified internally by a Boltzmann-Gibbs distribution--which is unequal but not nearly as unequal as the Pareto principle.


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


Ask questions about Albania and/or Enver Hoxha here.

228 posts and 78 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



>No country has done more for revolution than Cuba!

I only hope I can live to see a day where the embargo ends, enabling us to see how great Cuba could truly be


File: 4c55319e3a10fa0⋯.jpg (112.81 KB, 516x762, 86:127, Hoxha Tito.jpg)

What did Enver Hoxha think about Tito and vice versa?

How often did they hang out?

What did Enver Hoxha think about Yugoslavia and their model? What did he think about trading with Yugoslavia?



Tito was Hoxha's enemy #1. He wrote a 600-page book of memoirs called "The Titoites" and wrote innumerable articles condemning Yugoslavia as a capitalist country allied with imperialism. He denounced the Non-Aligned Movement in large part because Yugoslavia was behind it. When Khrushchev normalized relations with Yugoslavia in 1955, and Hua Guofeng visited Belgrade in 1977, Albanian relations with the CPSU and CPC promptly suffered.

Mehmet Shehu summarized the Albanian position: "Yugoslav revisionism was the forerunner of the 20th Congress and the first to establish its rule in its own country. For all this, Tito has the full right to boast of being the father of modern revisionism. Therefore all the revisionists, wherever they happen to be, render great honours to, and pompously welcome, him, consider him as their Saviour and God. But the stand towards Yugoslav revisionism has been and remains a touchstone which distinguishes the genuine Marxist-Leninists from the revisionists."

As for Tito, he didn't like Hoxha either. The Yugoslavs wanted to get rid of him during the years 1946-1948. When the Coninform denounced Tito, Hoxha was probably the only communist leader in Eastern Europe who went along with the denunciation out of genuine conviction, since Tito actually represented a mortal threat to him and Yugoslavia actually did dominate Albanian society, politics and economics from liberation till the Tito-Stalin split.

>How often did they hang out?

Hoxha met Tito only once, in 1946 when he visited Belgrade (that's what that photo you posted is taken from.)

>What did he think about trading with Yugoslavia?

Ironically, for all of the official hatred Albania had for Yugoslavia, the latter was one of Albania's main trading partners after 1978.


What would Enver Hoxha think that Albania is member nato?



He'd oppose it. He had no interest in joining NATO or rejoining the Warsaw Pact.

On the other hand, his wife (who still considers herself a Marxist-Leninist and defends her husband and the socialist era) did defend membership in NATO ten years ago:

>“My experience has shown that it’s hard for small countries to survive. Whether you want it or not, you have to accept the support of big powers,” she said in an interview with the Financial Times.

>“Albania has to move in a western direction, towards Nato and the European Union,” she said. “I think we deserve an invitation, and I have no doubt we will be a reliable ally.”

>Calling Kosovo’s declaration of independence “a dream come true for every Albanian,” Mrs Hoxha endorsed the EU’s role in the former Yugoslav province.

>“Kosovo has a long struggle ahead,” she said. “In my opinion the EU will provide an umbrella for development, although only Nato can guarantee its security.”

File: ce3e9574b1f7fac⋯.jpg (124.24 KB, 940x627, 940:627, 8061154-3x2-940x627.jpg)


The only good commie is a hospice ass lead-off hitter



File: 20626f63f1b3bcb⋯.png (8.36 KB, 200x200, 1:1, Hammer_and_sickle_red_on_t….png)


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.

5. Get ready

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.

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


This is it.


>Posters, Print out fucktons of leaflets

What decade do you think this is?



Posters are only important if just one group has a monopoly in it. Allows you to show off some of that fancy Communist aesthetic people love too.



tbh because most people are armchairs



>bumping a nearly 6 month old thread


File: 38635e8bd1975d0⋯.jpg (79.56 KB, 790x444, 395:222, 58de4fc3c4618838398b4585.jpg)


As we all know, accusations of lack of democracy is one of the main ways western countries demonize other countries and justify sanctions and war against them. But what is the state of democracy in the countries considered enemies of the west actually like? For example, the DPRK, Iran, Cuba, Syria, Venezuela, Russia and China. As far as I know, every single one of these countries holds elections of one sort or another, but it's still common knowledge that these countries are all dictatorships, and the elections fake (or something). What's the truth here? Which of these countries have legit elections and which are 100% dictatorships?

On a related note, I've noticed that liberals often treat democracy as a binary thing, an on/off switch. Either a country is a democracy (which usually coincidences with being good friends with the US) or it's a dictatorship, but it's obvious to me that democracy, rule of the people, exists on a spectrum. The US, "a democracy", has elections but also has a bunch of problems which compromise the legitimacy of the democratic process, such as normalization of huge amounts of money in politics, voter fraud, a few media companies having complete control over the access to information, etc. Conversely, if you study Stalin era USSR (an obvious "totalitarian dictatorship" to most people) you find that even that society had democratic elements to it. Categorizing countries into democracies and dictatorships is mostly a way to signal which countries are "good" and which deserve sanctions and military intervention imo.


>Categorizing countries into democracies and dictatorships is mostly a way to signal which countries are "good" and which deserve sanctions and military intervention imo.

Yeah, for Marxists democracy and dictatorship are not antithetical when talking about the state. The dictatorial element is always the main function, and democracy is always limited in some way by what class is in power (bourgeois democracy limiting the influence of the vast majority of the population, proletarian democracy limiting the influence of exploiting elements.)

I can't comment on Iran, but the DPRK has a modified form of the Soviet electoral system. To quote one bourgeois analyst, "The LaFollette Progressives could not have desired an electoral law which on paper provides for a more direct expression of the wishes of the electorate with the most modern safeguards for preventing a perversion of the national will than that presently in operation in the USSR."

Of course, it's the "on paper" part that's ultimately important. In practice the CPSU stage-managed the process. There was some liveliness and meaningful participation on the local level (towns, villages), but on the national level the ordinary Soviet citizen simply voted because he or she was expected to do so. Apathy was widespread.

I wouldn't be surprised if the DPRK has a similar problem.

As for Cuba, it has changed its system a fair bit since the early 90s. There are two books on its electoral system:

* http://b-ok.cc/book/2482948/67174c

* http://b-ok.cc/book/2548797/920457

As for Russia, Venezuela and (at least since 2012) Syria, their systems seem to meet the criteria of bourgeois democracies insofar as there are opposition parties. The argument is that the ruling parties have numerous in-built advantages (e.g. state media which gives them preferential treatment) which all but ensure their victory, but at the samPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at



Thank you!

File: f02cb009aa99a0b⋯.png (754.67 KB, 1554x1180, 777:590, ClipboardImage.png)


It's literally always the same thing with you politispergs

Ancuck: (cap)

>me? i'd be an bussiness owner, not a slave like 99% of the population

<goverment is evil!

Ancuck: (com)

>me? i'd be a bussiness owner, not a slave like 99% of the population

<goverment is evil!

Cumskin tranny mod:

>me? i'd be an card-carrying member of the party, not a starving slave like 99% of the population

<goverment is a nescessary evil!


>me? i'd be an white, unlike 99% of the population

<goverment is a nescessary evil!


>me? i'd be an aristocrat, not a serf like 99% of the population

<goverment is a nescessary evil!


>me? i'd be an citizen, like 100% of the population

<goverment exist to serve the people, not the other way around.

literally always the same

1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


You realise that being a member of the CPSU wasn't even mandatory in the USSR and being a member was basically just a thing if you were part of politics

Most citizens weren't "Higher up party members" and they didn't starve to death



Being a CPSU member actually had more duties and downsides than not being one. Members paid a sort of due-tax on their income to the CPSU, CPSU-affiliated managerial workers and so on accepted meager salaries in comparison to non-CPSU members, you were to do party work during the evenings, you were to be an inspiration and a model to other workers, and thus meet higher quotas, be away less from work, and so on.


File: 3b8441bd6f3b777⋯.jpg (151.57 KB, 2045x1215, 409:243, 06b617cb0a30d6ad693eb09ec1….jpg)

File: d780852cd3c6826⋯.png (1.84 MB, 2000x3236, 500:809, 8aa41aec35490a7b48ca4fcdde….png)

File: 56b5fe2018da516⋯.png (778.03 KB, 630x1714, 315:857, 56b5fe2018da516e66fe4502a0….png)

>me? i'd be an bussiness owning, card-carrying member of the aristocratic Kool Kids Kommunist Party for whites like the rest of the population

<government is a nessecary existing to serve the people!




NazBol is so stupid.


File: 6d2886e226f7319⋯.jpg (Spoiler Image, 113.42 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 6d2886e226f7319bbf45123512….jpg)


t. uncultured swine

File: 23c5e8a52fe902b⋯.png (631.08 KB, 702x813, 234:271, communist__emancipation_by….png)


I'm wondering if there are books that describe in detail the organizational structure of the Bolshevik / RSDLP party from 1907-1917. Particularly democratic centralism and how to build a party.


There's two books that deal with how the Bolsheviks approached participation in elections to the Tsarist Duma:

* https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1ZP6ZurgOg-TWZkakp3b0VYZEE/view (the author being a Bolshevik participant in said Duma)

* http://b-ok.cc/book/2517417/664f75 (a modern academic account)

I can't think of any books directly answering your "describe in detail the organizational structure of the Bolshevik / RSDLP party" though. Very briefly, the Central Committee operated in exile and gave instructions to regional committees inside the Russian Empire, which were responsible for establishing local Bolshevik organizations and cells, setting up study groups among workers, collecting funds for strikes, etc.

File: e0aee9296053278⋯.jpg (30.03 KB, 960x893, 960:893, e0aee9296053278668002440c2….jpg)


Can someone explain to me the ML consensus on what's been going on regarding the woman's role in society the last 100 years?

>was it technology or activism that made women enter the workforce?

>did women not work prior to the world wars because they were told not to, because they had to work unpaid obligatory labour like washing (which became much easier after the advent of the washing machine)?

>when the washing machine came, why did women even want to join the workforce?

>how did women get to vote?

Did the social relations change themselves or did the material conditions facilitate it?


While this isn't an answer, chapter III of the following work talks a bit about women's struggles in US history, including for suffrage and in organized labor: https://archive.org/details/HumanRightsUSStyle

Marxist historian Philip S. Foner also wrote a two-volume history of women in American labor from colonial times up to the 1970s. I have PDFs of them if you're interested.

I don't think there is a ML consensus (e.g. there's no Marxist analysis of the American women's suffrage movement that I know of, let alone a definitive work covering other subjects you mention.)



Could you perhaps tell me their main points about how women gained rights?



I haven't read the Foner books yet, and the first book I linked to I read years back.

But basically, they gained basic political rights like anyone else does: organizing into groups, protesting, running or endorsing candidates in elections, braving threats and violence, etc.

It also helped that, as with other movements, there were always bourgeois and petty-bourgeois figures who urged white and/or male capitalists to grant basic rights so that oppressed people wouldn't turn toward increasingly radical solutions to their problems.


>was it technology or activism that made women enter the workforce?

daily work gotten easier, household work has gotten more automated and that capitalists needed cheaper labor.

>did women not work prior to the world wars because they were told not to, because they had to work unpaid obligatory labour like washing (which became much easier after the advent of the washing machine)?

Work outside of a store, cleaning or cooking was very taxing so mostly men did those jobs.

>when the washing machine came, why did women even want to join the workforce?

lots of propaganda most women worked until they had children but now you need two incomes to stay a float.

>how did women get to vote?

that is the problem with democracy. the people allowed to vote always expands, this happens in every democracy not just the US.

>Did the social relations change themselves or did the material conditions facilitate it?

Material conditions influenced social change and porky's need to destroy the family to make better consumers



>that is the problem with democracy

How is wider suffrage a problem? Or am I misunderstanding you?

File: bec269498242591⋯.jpg (64.04 KB, 447x601, 447:601, 1460131773459-1.jpg)


Questions about China today and in the past

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



>Muh Jaywalking Cameras

Nothing to do with social credit

>Muh trains

<Telling people not to smoke on the train is literally Muh 1984 Muh Black mirror

>not being able to board Planes trains or Buses if labelled as dangerous

Literally just a no fly list

Any American who critisizes this is an Uber hypocrite

>If you get high social credit you get rewards like better interest rates and dating sites XD

Not true at all.

Even the article he shows (a snippet) of points out that this is part of Seasame credit which is basically just a customer loyalty scam by Alibaba which gets you low interest and sheit by shopping with them

>Uyghers are forced to give their current location at all times to the Chinese goverment

No citation given

No evidence for this I could find at all

Those are just some basic falsehoods I saw in this abysmal video

It would be good if Ismail could point out anything else false he notices



lmao I fucking love when people like PJW call China communist whenever they report about its alleged atrocities, but call it capitalist whenever they talk about its economic success.

I've even seen people call the USSR capitalist whenever the industrialization and the rise in living standards came up, but called it a communist dictatorship when talking about its flaws.


china is cool but I don't like what they do to dogs :(


what confuses me is leadership in China. i know you had Mao, but then Deng wasn't technically a general secretary but a "paramount leader" or something and then after that it gets super confusing. who succeeded Deng? are there any notable leaders after him (excluding Xi Jingping)? also how popular is Deng among Chinese people?




* After Mao died, Hua Guofeng became his successor and worked with Deng to defeat the Gang of Four.

* Hua portrayed himself as the loyal follower of Mao, his policy being known as the Two Whatevers (basically saying the CPC will uphold whatever Mao wanted.) Deng, however, criticized the Two Whatevers as incompatible with Marxism, and many were dissatisfied that Hua was more interested in simply ending the Cultural Revolution rather than radically reforming the economy.

* Deng defeated Hua Guofeng in 1980, replacing him with Zhao Ziyang and Hu Yaobang who were responsible for carrying out Deng's reforms.

* Zhao ended up having a falling out with Deng in 1989 due to some unpopular liberal economic policies and also his unwillingness to take decisive action against the counter-revolutionary forces in Tienanmen. Zhao is replaced with Jiang Zemin.

* In 1992 Deng toured Chinese provinces which were at the forefront of economic reform. Deng emphasized that the process of opening up the economy should continue. With that he basically retired from political life. Jiang Zemin, General Secretary of CPC since replacing Zhao in 1989, also became President in 1993. From that point on all the "actual" leaders of China (Jiang, Hu Jintao, Xi Jinping) have simultaneously served as President and General Secretary.

>also how popular is Deng among Chinese people?

There was no personality cult built around Deng, so no one is like "DENG IS THE MOST GLORIOUS SUN WHO LIGHTS OUR LIVES" or whatever, but he's pretty much universally liked except by liberals who get mad over Tienanmen.

Post last edited at

Delete Post [ ]
Previous [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
| Catalog | Nerve Center | Cancer
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / arda / doomer / faggotry / komica / monarchy / s / tingles ]