[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ara / dcaco / doomer / leftyb / pinoy / sonyeon / tingles / zoo ]

/marx/ - Marxism

It makes you smart

Catalog   Archive

Winner of the 67rd Attention-Hungry Games
/ara/ - Mothercon

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

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

File: 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

86 posts and 35 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
Post last edited at



I wouldn't know, /marx/ is all I ever look at on 8Chan outside of very infrequent glances at /leftypol/ when I'm bored.

File: 5aefa89dd52e8f1⋯.jpeg (151.24 KB, 1200x1109, 1200:1109, 7E557176-932C-42D3-938A-8….jpeg)


old thread: >>>/marx/10096

A continuation of the thread for general questions on socialism, history, Marxist positions of X Y Z, etc. In a break with tradition I am making the thread. If there ends up being a duplicate or you want your own thread for whatever reason, feel free to delete this

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



What are some of the books you recommend that deal with the implementation of socialist policies?



There is a book someone I know scanned last year titled "The Transition from Capitalism to Socialism," giving the Soviet perspective: https://archive.org/details/TransitionCapitalismSocialism

I'm not aware of any others that specifically deal with "here's how to transition your economy to socialism."


What can you tell me about South Yemen? Were they convinced communists? On the Wikipedia page, it's listed as a "satellite" of the USSR, would you say this was an accurate description of their relationship?



The Yemeni Socialist Party was avowedly Marxist-Leninist. Calling it a "satellite" of the USSR requires explaining what makes a "satellite," since it's a term thrown about by anti-communists. South Yemen's leaders occasionally acted contrary to Soviet wishes, as I noted in an earlier post: >>12016


Is it true healthcare in China is private? How can that be? How does it compare to the U.S. system for exmaple?

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.

326 posts and 45 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



According to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, "Wrangel’s defeat ended the armed struggle against the landowning-bourgeois counterrevolution and the interventionists on most of the country’s territory. By 1921 the Civil War was essentially over, and the Soviet Republic began the transition from war to peace."



Thanks, but I meant was there an official document, treaty, decree, etc. ratifying the end of the civil war?



No. The Entente refused to recognize the existence of the Bolshevik government, the major White officers (Denikin, Yudenich, Wrangel, Kolchak) either fled or were executed, the bourgeois governments of the Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia) were overthrown, and elements of the Basmachi kept fighting into the early 1930s. So for the most part there wasn't anyone to sign treaties with.

Treaties were signed with Poland, the Baltic states and Finland. Japan also indirectly negotiated with the Bolsheviks via the buffer state known as the Far Eastern Republic. That's about it to my knowledge. But there was no treaty saying "this hereby ends the Russian Civil War." It was simply recognized by 1921 that the war had largely ended.


What mass ethnic migrations happened during the SU's time and for what reason? Were some of them forced?

Again, thanks Ismail for keeping at this. I may not agree with you on everything but I have learned a lot from this board and interacting with you. Rading your posts has helped me grow as a leftist.



By "migrations" do you mean into the USSR, or within it?

If into, there were quite a few Westerners who moved to the USSR during the 1920s-30s to escape economic hardship and/or help build the world's first socialist society. I recently scanned a book about Americans who did so: https://archive.org/details/CameStayUSSR

If between, the main migration was that of Russian and Ukrainian workers and managers into other parts of the USSR since rapid industrialization led to labor shortages and also since many of the peoples of the Union were economically backward and thus indigenous personnel had to be gradually trained, the working-class of such regions had to grow from a small number (if it even existed at all), etc.

The forced migrations took place during the Great Purges and the Great Patriotic War, e.g. many Soviet Poles were deported eastward during the Purges; Stalin praised Yezhov for his thorough job "uncovering" supposed mass treason on the part of that population.

The wartime migrations are well-known, the Soviet government received reports of mass treason (including armed revolts) and Stalin decided to uproot the whole populations (Chechens, Crimean Tatars, etc.) Volga Germans were also among those deported, chiefly to the Kazakh SSR. After Stalin's death the CPSU condemned these deportations as unjust.

File: 40c99d8c30a650e⋯.jpeg (93.19 KB, 628x800, 157:200, marx.jpeg)


howdy folks

14 posts and 14 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 23661c2b1c94ee3⋯.jpg (72.09 KB, 400x488, 50:61, Groucho-Marx-Last-Will-&-D….jpg)


*Insert laugh track*


Apparently Groucho was an anarcho-socialist. Nice.




Uphold Groucho-Marxism


File: 605d3dbdb09d775⋯.jpg (22.33 KB, 300x300, 1:1, Hcybitpaowynaaa.jpg)

id consider myself a marxist-lennonist

File: bdabd51c619e4ad⋯.jpg (119.16 KB, 453x640, 453:640, Stalin-diamond-embroidery-….jpg)


> New vid by FinBol


Was Stalin based?

Should Trots get shot?

What text by Stalin should be read and what moments in the history of Stalins USSR outline the development of a new (Socialist) mode of production?

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



>They opened up the the West

What does that mean? Jazz music was no longer denounced?

>looked at neoliberal economics for the answers on how the proceed from the 50s onwards.

That sounds like bullshit considering neoliberal thought in the West didn't become prominent until a decade after Khrushchev had been ousted from power, nor was any economist in the USSR proposing anything like neoliberalism in the 1950s-60s. It wasn't until 1989 that Soviet economic journals ran articles portraying Hayek and Friedman in a positive light.

Post last edited at



>calling Khrushchev a "revisionist" makes little sense. He really didn't depart that much from Stalin.

Khrushchev is a complete revisionist. Even apart from his slanderous attacks on Stalin, there was his theory of “peaceful co-existence” – a policy which China and Albania rightfully criticized for practically negating proletarian internationalism and class conflict as a policy beyond mere rhetoric. This is a flagrant deviation from the Marxist-Leninist line:

<The foreign policy of the proletariat is alliance with the revolutionaries of the advanced countries and with all the oppressed nations against all and any imperialists.


Khrushchev’s capitulationism was well shown in Cuba and look where it lead with delusions about a “peaceful road to socialism” with Eurocommunism. Further evidence of Khrushchev’s un-Marxist views were in relation to his conception of the state. The well-established Marxist position emphasizes the class-character of the state. The state cannot be “of the whole people” as Khrushchev claimed it was. From the whole period between capitalist society and classlessness there will be class struggle, hence the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat. MLs even believe that class struggle will intensify. He was utterly infected by bourgeois thought. There’s nothing to defend, I can’t believe you’ve turned into a Deng-loving Khrushchevite



>Even apart from his slanderous attacks on Stalin,

Criticizing the personal qualities of someone has nothing to do with revisionism. Using that logic Stalin himself was revisionist for having Tito denounced as a "fascist," ditto Mao and Hoxha for characterizing Brezhnev in similar terms.

>there was his theory of “peaceful co-existence”

I think you give Khrushchev too much credit. He was no theorist. It was Lenin who originated that concept. When asked in a 1920 interview "What are our plans in Asia?" he replied:

>They are the same as in Europe: peaceful coexistence with all peoples. . . Let the American capitalists leave us alone. We shall not touch them. We are even ready to pay them in gold for any machinery, tools, etc., useful to our transport and industries. We are ready to pay not only in gold, but in raw materials too.

(Source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/feb/18a.htm)

In a 1947 interview with an American politician, Stalin replied:

>Let us not mutually criticize our systems. Everyone has the right to follow the system he wants to maintain. Which one is better will be said by history. We should respect the systems chosen by the people, and whether the system is good or bad is the business of the American people. To co-operate, one does not need the same systems. One should respect the other system when approved by the people. Only on this basis can we secure co-operation.

>Some people call the Soviet system totalitarian. Our people call the American system monopoly capitalism. If we start calling each other names with the words monopolist and totalitarian, it will lead to no co-operation.

>As to propaganda, I am not a prPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at



>Khrushchev’s capitulationism was well shown in Cuba

The US withdrew its nukes from Turkey in exchange for the USSR withdrawing its nukes from Cuba. I'm not sure where the Soviets were supposed to have "capitulated." They guaranteed Cuban independence in the event of a US invasion.

>and look where it lead with delusions about a “peaceful road to socialism”

Again, you're giving Khrushchev too much credit. Marx and Engels wrote at length on the possibility of socialism being achieved via the ballot box, though warning the workers to always expect violent counter-measures by the capitalists. This is what happened in, say, Czechoslovakia: the CPCz won the 1946 elections fair and square, and in 1948 bourgeois members of the government sought to create a parliamentary crisis by resigning. The CPCz organized workers on the streets to thwart this attempt to oust the Communists from the government.

Likewise communist parties across much of the globe during the 1940s and early 50s were already speaking of the "peaceful road to socialism." Stalin himself helped the CPGB write "The British Road to Socialism," a 1951 document which declared "that the people of Britain can transform capitalist democracy into a real People’s Democracy, transforming Parliament, the product of Britain’s historic struggle for democracy, into the democratic instrument of the will of the vast majority of her people."

>with Eurocommunism.

The Soviets were opposed to Eurocommunism (e.g. they subsidized anti-Eurocommunist elements in the PCI), and the Eurocommunists likewise criticized the USSR. Even in Khrushchev's day, before Eurocommunism existed, Togliatti was criticized for arguing that what Stalin did had reflected deeper problems with Soviet society which he said the CPSU was unwilling to confront.

>The well-established Marxist position emphasizes the class-character of the state. The state cannot be “of the whole people” as Khrushchev claimed it was.Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


To add to my prior two posts, here is Khrushchev himself at the 20th CPSU Congress on the possibility of a peaceful road to socialism:

>Our enemies like to depict us Leninists as advocates of violence always and everywhere. True, we recognise the need for the revolutionary transformation of capitalist society into socialist society. It is this that distinguishes the revolutionary Marxists from the reformists, the opportunists. There is no doubt that in a number of capitalist countries the violent overthrow of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the sharp aggravation of class struggle connected with this are inevitable.

>But the forms of social revolution vary. It is not true that we regard violence and civil war as the only way to remake society.

>It will be recalled that in the conditions that arose in April 1917 Lenin granted the possibility that the Russian Revolution might develop peacefully. . .

>Leninism teaches us that the ruling classes will not surrender their power voluntarily. And the greater or lesser degree of intensity which the struggle may assume, the use or the non-use of violence in the transition to socialism, depends on the resistance of the exploiters, on whether the exploiting class itself resorts to violence, rather than on the proletariat.

>In this connection the question arises of whether it is possible to go over to socialism by using parliamentary means. No such course was open to the Russian Bolsheviks. . .

>Since then, however, the historical situation has undergone radical changes which make possible a new approach to the question. The forces of socialism and democracy have grown immeasurably throughout the world, and capitalism has become much weaker. . . .

>In these circumstances the working class, by rallying around itself the working peasantry, the intelligentsia, all patriotic forces, and resolutely repulsing the opportunist elements who are incapable of giving up the policy of compromise with the capitalists and landlPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at

File: def976f8b8294ba⋯.jpg (8.26 KB, 252x200, 63:50, alt left stirner.jpg)


What I mean is, what is communism ultimately trying to achieve? Is it trying to create the most free society imaginable, similar to what anarcho-capitalists seem to aim for (but ofc capitalism only results in wage slavery). Is communism trying to create the happiest society imaginable? The fairest society?

2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 94a35e7b08abb2c⋯.png (864.27 KB, 565x800, 113:160, ClipboardImage.png)

To build a better and brighter modernity. Contra what that contemporary identitarian New "Left" thinks, it isn't to right every wrong that capitalism has wroght nor is it to "return to the ways of the ancestors", as though such reactionary notions were ever possible. We have no intention of destroying the machine but to harness the machine to its full potential, so that it serve the many instead of just a few.


File: 234ff1e680ef416⋯.png (19.57 KB, 174x162, 29:27, Heil it, daddio.png)

Different anon here, what is the point of the centrally planned economy? It seems like a whole lot of extra effort to calculate demand and balance production and determine prices. Why not just let supply, demand, and taxation do the work for you and intervene in commodities and futures exchanges when people start doing crazy shit?

Also are proletariat, petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie relevant social classes any more? Many of the people close to the top of society are executives who still trade managerial labor for income. I myself am in the low end of the professional class yet have a 401k, 401a, IRA, mutual funds, I own no land but could if I wanted to. What am I? Capital ownership is transient via long-term stakes in large managed funds that buy and sell frequently, workers are transient, management is transient. Is the west still really capitalism at this point?


What about The New Class? Isn't that an unsolvable paradox?



>what is the point of the centrally planned economy? It seems like a whole lot of extra effort to calculate demand and balance production and determine prices. Why not just let supply, demand, and taxation do the work for you and intervene in commodities and futures exchanges when people start doing crazy shit?

Well at this point we're talking about socialism, not communism (under the latter there are no longer commodities and distribution is based on need.)

Planning exists in a socialist country to allocate resources for the benefit of the working-class and other non-exploiting sections of society rather than merely for the profit of capitalists. Planning also aims to do away with the anarchy that characterizes capitalist production with its boom and bust cycles, etc.

The problem is to determine the relationship between the plan and the market. As Deng bluntly stated in 1987:

>Why do some people always insist that the market is capitalist and only planning is socialist? Actually they are both means of developing the productive forces. So long as they serve that purpose, we should make use of them. If they serve socialism they are socialist; if they serve capitalism they are capitalist. It is not correct to say that planning is only socialist, because there is a planning department in Japan and there is also planning in the United States. At one time we copied the Soviet model of economic development and had a planned economy. Later we said that in a socialist economy planning was primary. We should not say that any longer.

Your talk of "long-term stakes in large managed funds" is nothing new. Back in the 1950s-60s there was talk of "People's Capitalism" making use of stocks, which went nowhere. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia contains a brief critique: https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/People%27s+Capitalism%2c+Theory+of

>WhatPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: f7e26463e13af36⋯.png (78.31 KB, 676x754, 26:29, ClipboardImage.png)


>The Great Soviet Encyclopedia contains a brief critique: https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/People%27s+Capitalism%2c+Theory+of

If the hit counter is bullshit I don't see why I should trust anything else written there.

>"Soviet leader Yuri Andropov, as Time magazine reported, lived in a simple five-room apartment in the same housing project near the Kremlin that once accommodated Leonid Brezhnev. Soviet political leaders, managers, and intelligentsia cannot amass great wealth from the labor of others. They cannot own the means of production nor pass ownership on to their progeny. When they retire, it is to modest living quarters on modest pensions. This hardly constitutes a 'new class.'

>Top-level state ministers and enterprise managers earn only about 2.7 to 4.0 times above the average industrial wage. (However, small numbers of prominent artists, writers, university administrators, and scientists make close to 10 times more.) Such income differences are not great when compared to the United States, where top entertainers, corporate owners, and other wealthy individuals annually take in several hundred times more than the average American wage earner."

>(Parenti, Michael. Inventing Reality: The Politics of the Mass Media. New York: St. Martin's Press. 1986. p. 141.)

Class is about power, not wealth. The two are obviously related, but the point still stands that even in a post-scarcity fully automated economy there are people who give orders on what must be made and to whom it should be delivered and people who obey those orders. Furthermore, NATO nations had something like 5x the annual GDP growth of Warsaw Pact nations between 1945 and 1989, they couldn't afford to swank out after retiring.



>If the hit counter is bullshit I don't see why I should trust anything else written there.

I don't get what you mean. The website is separate from the contents. It just so happens to have Great Soviet Encyclopedia articles from the 1970s in English.

>Class is about power, not wealth.

No, class is about relations to the means of production. One group of people giving orders to another is not how classes came about. One part of society came to own the means of production while another worked these means for their own subsistence.

Communism will entail a society where the division of labor no longer exists, so there won't be someone permanently occupied with "ordering" others.

>Furthermore, NATO nations had something like 5x the annual GDP growth of Warsaw Pact nations between 1945 and 1989, they couldn't afford to swank out after retiring.

I don't get what you mean by "couldn't afford to swank out after retiring." The restoration of capitalism in the USSR immediately resulted in an accumulation of wealth (often by illicit means) by former managers, bureaucrats and party officials while living standards dropped precipitously for the average person.

A country's impoverishment has nothing to do with whether its leaders can live luxuriously. The ruination of Zaire's economy went hand in hand with Mobutu amassing an astonishing fortune.

To quote from There Is No Freedom Without Bread! by Constantine Pleshakov, 2009, pp. 60-61:

>The world of luxury [Soviet and Eastern European officials] created for themselves was still a far cry from that of Imelda Marcos or John F. Kennedy and their wealth was not hereditary or even for life, because a leader ousted from power lost most of the material benefits the day he as sacked, and every person in Romania knew that the Ceaușescus' prosPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at

File: a4feeacc582d476⋯.png (5.38 KB, 2000x1000, 2:1, palestine.png)


A few questions I have

1. Did Marx or Engels ever advocate for something similar to socialist patriotism?

2. What's the difference between socialist patriotism and just regular left-wing nationalism?

3. Is nationalism a form of idpol? Is socialist patriotism a form of idpol?


1. Yes. The Communist Manifesto noted, "Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word."

Marx wrote in the first draft of The Civil War in France that the Paris Commune "was the first revolution in which the working class was openly acknowledged as the only class capable of social initiative, even by the great bulk of the Paris middle class—shopkeepers, tradesmen, merchants—the wealthy capitalists alone excepted." Marx concludes, "If the Commune was thus the true representative of all the healthy elements of French society, and therefore the truly national Government, it was, at the same time, as a working men's Government, as the bold champion of the emancipation of labour, emphatically international."

2. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia notes that socialist patriotism "harmoniously combines love for the best national traditions of one’s people with a selfless devotion to socialism and communism and with a respect for other peoples. Socialist patriotism is inseparably connected with proletarian internationalism."

Sun Yat-sen, Lázaro Cárdenas, Nehru, Yasser Arafat, and other representatives of what can be called "left-wing nationalism" were not Marxists. They may or may not have recognized a link between patriotism for one's homeland and a "brotherhood of man" or some other wider humanistic aspiration, but otherwise were concerned mainly with the consolidation of nations and/or removing the shackles of foreign domination.

3. I don't know what is meant by "idpol." Nationalism has existed for over 200 years. It'd be pretty awkward to use that very modern term on figures like Thomas Paine, Simón Bolívar, Giuseppe Garibaldi, Abdyl Frashëri, Kim Hyong-jik and Patrice Lumumba (among innumerable others.)

And since "idpol" seems to be used as a term to describe those making arguments against Marxists, then no, socialist patriotism doesn't qualify as such.

Post last edited at

File: e886e1b4cfa939d⋯.png (41.25 KB, 240x273, 80:91, Trotskywojack.png)


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

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





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

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

65 posts and 22 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



such as Leon?

ok fed nice try.

tbh, sexual orientation is unnatural in general, I am mostly against homosexuality for pro-natalist reasons




>Indeed, “Stalin hated gays” is something I’ve seen posted online numerous times by trots and anarchists. I doubt Stalin ever wrote or spoke a single public word on the matter.

what a fool

>An idiot and a degenerate. J. Stalin




Technically that's not a "public word," but yeah Stalin clearly had a negative view of homosexuality. In Russia homosexuals were also often equated with pedophiles, hence:

>On Sept. 15, 1933--shortly after German -Soviet relations were severed by the rise of Hitler to power--G. G. Iagoda, deputy chief of the Soviet political police, proposed the stricture against male homosexuality.

>Iagoda reportedly wrote to Joseph Stalin that the legislation was a matter of state security because of the establishment of "networks of salons, centers, dens, groups and other organized formations of pederasts, with the eventual transformation of these organizations into outright espionage cells.... Pederast activists, using the castelike exclusivity of pederastic circles for plainly counterrevolutionary aims, had politically demoralized various social layers of young men, including young workers, and even attempted to penetrate the army and navy."

>Stalin then allegedly forwarded this letter to his Politburo associate L. Kaganovich, saying that "these scoundrels must receive exemplary punishment, and a corresponding guiding decree must be introduced in our legislation." . . .

>And in 1933 and 1934, a prohibition against male homosexuality throughout the USSR--which created a 5-year prison penalty--was passed without public fanfare or explanation.

(Source: https://www.workers.org/ww/2004/lgbtseries1007.php)

Such is the problem with groups like the Stalin Society that only exist to exculpate him from any guilt for anything.



>sourcing from trot garbage website

ye ok


I believe that law applied only when the sodomy involved minors Ismail



>I believe that law applied only when the sodomy involved minors Ismail

Do you have a source for that being the case? From what I've read homosexual acts between men were criminalized.

Also even though the website is Trotskyist, academic works note Stalin's "an idiot and a degenerate" remarks, e.g. https://books.google.com/books?id=elLnsBeuYsEC&pg=PA189&dq=%22An+idiot+and+a+degenerate%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi36YeI67rgAhWPm-AKHVnyCBUQ6AEwAXoECAEQAg#v=onepage&q=%22An%20idiot%20and%20a%20degenerate%22&f=false

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

46 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



The scan quality is rather poor at times (e.g. pages 22-23 is upside down and unreadable) but nonetheless, I know people who will be interested in reading this.



Does someone have the Great Soviet Encyclopedia or the Small Soviet Encyclopedia? Preferably the 1928 edition. French or english.

I've already try /leftypol/ but they told me to try also try here.



I don't think the 1928 edition was ever in English.

The 1970s edition is online in English here: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/encyclopaedia (you have to type in an article name from the encyclopedia to view it)

As a random example: https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Great+October+Socialist+Revolution

Post last edited at



Thanks a lot, I will go with this edition. I guess I just need to find an index to have the name of all the articles.


Camarade René, there is another book that I've seen lots of people request from me, but which I can't afford (the "cheapest" copy is $70 used): "China's Socialist Economy" by Xue Muqiao, specifically the revised 1986 edition.

It's about 300 pages. Xue was the most important Chinese economist of the 80s and accordingly played a major role in Deng's reforms and in theorizing socialism with Chinese characteristics.

And unlike the other books you've been scanning, I can put it publicly on archive.org

Post last edited at

File: 5011da150177144⋯.png (81.48 KB, 220x575, 44:115, attractive and cunning tak….PNG)


Can we get a dedicated book recommendation thread going? I wanted to make a request and didn't know what to do it.

Anybody have book recommendations about the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution?

9 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



Fuck the same was supposed to be "Ismail" and a long line of numbers appearing after it.



It depends what your study group is interested in studying. For instance, there are two Soviet works intended to be overviews of Marxism-Leninism:

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

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


Are there multiple Ismails? Anyway thanks for the books comrade!



No, >>12396 is simply having fun.


File: 550c5341e5a1148⋯.png (546.99 KB, 566x1000, 283:500, ClipboardImage.png)


You need to get a good trip, Ismail.

File: ff2be096b5830dc⋯.png (5.43 KB, 1200x600, 2:1, ukraine ssr.png)


1. Generally, what do most MLs see Stalin as? Do they see him as a hero who did nothing wrong? A man who did bad things that are overshadowed by his good deeds? A villain?

2. Is there any actual evidence Stalin did/did nothing wrong?

3. Is Grover Furr trustworthy?

4. Thoughts on the Stalin Society?


1. MLs aren't a homogeneous mass. Basically, "official" (pro-Soviet) communist parties echoed what the CPSU itself said in 1956, that Stalin was an outstanding revolutionary who, however, did not reckon with Lenin's warnings and ended up concentrating power in his hands and carrying out violations of socialist legality. See: https://archive.org/details/OnOvercomingCultIndividual

The Chinese, because of the Sino-Soviet split, were more defensive of Stalin against Khrushchev and Brezhnev, claiming the latter two were "revisionists" who had "slandered" Stalin. At the same time Mao himself (mostly in private) was quite critical of Stalin's approach toward China as well as his views of philosophy, economics, and governance in general. See: http://massline.org/SingleSpark/Stalin/StalinMaoEval.htm

Maoist parties in the 1960s-80s, and their modern descendants, generally take a "Stalin did nothing wrong" view, e.g. they tend to defend the Great Purges and other aspects of the Stalin era that the former, pro-Soviet parties didn't. But there are some other Maoists, especially in the West, who go the other extreme and bash on Stalin in way almost reminiscent of Trotskyism, blaming him for pretty much everything they consider bad.

2. I wouldn't say so.

3. He can point out some misleading or false claims by anti-communists, but when it comes to actually proving stuff (like that the Moscow Trials were legit) he himself is on shaky ground. See my conversation on the Moscow Trials with a Furr supporter here: https://8ch.net/marx/res/11391.html

4. It exists to argue Stalin did nothing wrong. I think it's unnecessary. When it comes to claims like "Stalin purposefully created a famine in the Ukraine to exterminate Ukrainians," you don't need to be a "Stalinist" to argue that's rubbish; even Robert Conquest argued against it.

Post last edited at


"ML"s aren't really a hegemonic entity

Maoites self described Stalinists and Hoxhaites have historically defended him against all criticism (In the case of Hoxhaites / Stalinists I would say genuinely to the point of cult like behaviour in some circumstances)

Generic "Marxists-Leninists" aka the Post stalin USSR / Eastern bloc etc's stance was basically 'Stalin was a good man but still made fumbles' (the condemnation of his actions by Nikita was nowhere to the point that Ultra's made it out to be)


Wells "wrong" is a subjective concept in this scenario


For basic Anti-Communist smears yes but when it comes to shit like the Purge / Moscow trials he himself ends up relying on Imperialist propaganda to prove his point


They solely exist to make like the same 5 arguements for stalin furr made in 500 different ways



>the condemnation of his actions by Nikita was nowhere to the point that Ultra's made it out to be

It's also worth noting that the infamous "Secret Speech" wasn't even published in the USSR until 1989. The Soviets basically pretended it didn't exist and would always point to the aforementioned June 30, 1956 Central Committee resolution for the party's evaluation of Stalin: https://archive.org/details/OnOvercomingCultIndividual

But yeah if one actually reads the speech, while it *does* contain exaggerations, omissions, and even a few falsehoods (anti-communists were pointing out problems with the text shortly after its release), it's hardly a repudiation of Stalin, e.g.

>We must affirm that the Party fought a serious fight against the Trotskyites, rightists and bourgeois nationalists, and that it disarmed ideologically all the enemies of Leninism. This ideological fight was carried on successfully, as a result of which the Party became strengthened and tempered. Here Stalin played a positive role.

>he was one of the strongest Marxists and his logic, his strength and his will greatly influenced [Party] cadres and Party work.

>We consider that Stalin was extolled to excess. However, in the past Stalin undoubtedly performed great services to the Party, to the working class and to the international workers’ movement.

>We cannot say that these were the deeds of a giddy despot. He considered that this should be done in the interest of the Party, of the working masses, in the name of the defense of the revolution’s gains. In this lies the whole tragedy!

Post last edited at

File: 52fa0036609602a⋯.jpg (112.6 KB, 660x440, 3:2, marx and engels.jpg)


Did Marx or Engels ever talk about what gender was? If so, what did they think about it and how did they see it? If not, can we use dialectical materialism to work out what exactly gender is and what function it serves in the present society?


To my knowledge the most substantive text they wrote about gender was Engels' "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State": https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm

There is also the first fifteen chapters of August Bebel's "Woman and Socialism" which is considered a must-read Marxist text for those interested in the subject: https://www.marxists.org/archive/bebel/1879/woman-socialism/index.htm

Post last edited at

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.

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



This trap needs to go FULL CONVERSION



You're telling us what to do but not how to do it.



>Print out fucktons of leaflets

okay then TROT



I should make a video game like this.


Yes comrades!

File: 30ad3b6838a2ae2⋯.png (371.01 KB, 1174x1199, 1174:1199, ddr symbol.png)


What are the differences between lower-stage communism, upper-stage communism and socialism?


Marx in his Critique of the Gotha Programme spoke of two phases of communism.

Marx argues that the lower phase "is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it."

Socialism is another, simpler term for this phase, hence why Lenin wrote in The State and Revolution of "the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism)."

Marx continues, "In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

In other words, this is communism as usually understood.

Post last edited at



Aren't there some theorists that argue that socialism is in fact below the first-stage of communism? If I remember correctly even some Soviet theorists held that position and modern China employs a similar view.



Soviet theorists under Brezhnev spoke of the USSR entering "developed socialism," which had differences from socialism as it existed in the 1930s-60s. But they still argued that socialism was the lower phase of communism.

The CPC holds that China is only in a "primary stage of socialism." As far as i know they still regard socialism as the first phase of communist society.

File: d815935d23a912b⋯.jpeg (1.82 MB, 4032x2041, 4032:2041, BF15EA5C-B780-457A-9FBB-7….jpeg)

File: 7b7aff8689314ce⋯.jpeg (1.63 MB, 3452x1922, 1726:961, 53D3028A-BE4E-4302-AF6A-3….jpeg)


Time to post pics, view the shelves of others and likely learn of some new books to read long the way!

I don’t have tons of books and I probably haven’t read up to 1/3rd of these yet, but I plan to get around to all of them eventually

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


File: 55acf3c918a9727⋯.png (2.78 KB, 291x82, 291:82, Untitled.png)

Most of my books are digital. My physical bookshelf has mostly Russian thinkers; Bukharin, Plekhanov, Berdyaev, a bit of Stalin and Lenin, Dugin and Limonov, and other misc books; history, economics, philosophy and a few classics of literature.


File: 0d69a117aa9582a⋯.jpg (1.81 MB, 4752x2672, 297:167, IMG_20190120_204100.jpg)


Here are two books I'd recommend. The former will be useful to anyone interested in historical materialism, although the book itself isn't written from a Marxist perspective. The latter is a materialist analysis of the early years of Zionism.

The first one (which I hold open because it has no cover) is an intro to the science of cliodynamics, which is a mathematical approach towards history, that is, demographic shifts. The background of the author is in plant and animal population statistics, a methodology he attempted to apply to human populations (with obvious adjustment). This is only an intro to this sort of study of history, he has an entire series of books basing off of what he formulates in this book.



>Dugin and Limonov

why would you even pay for fascist literature



it's a few rare (unavailable online) books



Why is your copy of Shock Doctrine so thicc?

Delete Post [ ]
Previous [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
| Catalog | Nerve Center | Cancer
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ara / dcaco / doomer / leftyb / pinoy / sonyeon / tingles / zoo ]