[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / arepa / ausneets / ecopol / leftpol / sl / sonyeon / vichan ]

/marx/ - Marxism

It makes you smart

Catalog   Archive

Name
Email
Subject
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.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

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)

 No.2397[Reply]

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

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

 No.8562




File: 9d2b79227645d21⋯.jpg (236.86 KB, 646x839, 646:839, Labor Defender June 1929.jpg)

 No.8560[Reply]

Old thread: https://8ch.net/marx/res/5721.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.

314 posts and 30 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.9251

>>9250

1. Marx specifically wrote of a lower and higher stage of communism. The lower stage (which, as Marx writes, "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") was called socialism by Lenin and by all subsequent Soviet authors.

2. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union argued that the dictatorship of the proletariat fulfilled its historical role and had ceased to exist by the end of the 1950s. Soviet authors from the 1930s onward also noted that, strictly speaking, there was no proletariat in the USSR (there was no capitalist class to buy the labor-power of workers and threaten them with unemployment as a way to drive down wages.)

3. Money serves an accounting function under socialism; it cannot be turned into capital. Commodities were produced for their use value, not exchange value (nor was labor-power a commodity as it is under capitalism.)

4. Left-communists in that case are in no position to be accusing Leninists of revisionism.


 No.9252

>>9244

The more people are vegetarian, the less such products will end up in stores. Also >>9247 is right.

Besides, how am I "wasting my time"? Cooking quorn balls takes exactly as long as cooking meatballs.


 No.9255

bit of a strange thing to ask but was Marx really an anti-semite? i've never gotten around to reading his Jewish question book but i've heard some bad things about it.


 No.9256

>>9255

He uses stereotypes in his article to make points, and elsewhere he made derogatory references to Jews, but to quote an author who can't be accused of sympathy with Marxism:

"Crude and repulsive as Marx's and Engels' racial remarks to each other often were, there is no need to make them still worse by putting them in the same category as twentieth-century racism that has justified genocide. Marx's much criticized essay, 'On the Jewish Question,' for example, contains clear statements of his distaste for what he considered to be Jewish cultural or social traits, but in the end it was a defense of Jews' right to full political equality, written as a reply to a contemporary who had claimed that Jews should be required to give up their religion before receiving equal civil status." (The Thomas Sowell Reader, 2011, pp. 185-186.)

And to quote Jewish scholar Louis Harap:

>it must be emphasized that Marx was an advocate of political rights for the Jews. . . the Rheinische Zeitung, a Cologne paper that Marx edited from 1842 until its suppression in March 1843, was one of the strongest supporters of Jewish emancipation as one aspect of the struggle against the clerical monarchy. The article which finally brought the suppression of the paper was one by Marx in which he placed the blame for oppression of the peasants on the landowners and bureaucrats and makes no mention of the popular notion that the Jews were responsible. . .

>When new taxes against Jews or new restrictions were proposed, the paper fought against them. It published articles by Jewish liberals and the Jewish paper, Allgemeine Zeitung des Judentums, in 1842 often quoted material from the Rheinische Zeitung on the Jewish question. It was probably because of the paper’s militant support of Jewish rights that the leading Jews of Cologne early in 1843 turned to its editor, Karl Marx, to draw up a petition for Jewish rights to be submitted to the Landtag.

Marx's anti-Semitic remarks are thus a relatively minor defect in his personality, unlike BaPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at

 No.9259

>>9256

>unlike Bakunin (who saw his struggle against Marx partly through an anti-Semitic lens)

wait what




File: 1d80622b86f1fd6⋯.jpg (117.65 KB, 382x338, 191:169, Lenin reading.jpg)

 No.4702[Reply]

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

561 posts and 191 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.9240

>>9239

Marx and Engels never spoke of workers "directly controlling" the means of production. They spoke of production being socialized. "Direct control" is the slogan of syndicalism, not Marxism.


 No.9245

Do you think America will have Socialist revolution in the future? If so when do you think that revolution will happen, and in what form will that revolution happen?


 No.9246

>>9245

Lenin famously said in January 1917, shortly before the downfall of the Tsar, "We of the older generation may not live to see the decisive battles of this coming revolution."

I don't think the United States is immune from a socialist revolution. Capitalism is inherently prone to political and economic crises. Class struggle continues to operate.

I think that a civil war is inevitable in the event that either socialist forces triumph or fascist forces assume power over the state.

No one can predict when a revolution will take place or what forms it will use. What's important is (as Lenin wrote) to "be able at each particular moment to find the particular link in the chain which you must grasp with all your might in order to hold the whole chain and to prepare firmly for the transition to the next link; the order of the links, their form, the manner in which they are linked together, the way they differ from each other in the historical chain of events, are not as simple and not as meaningless as those in an ordinary chain made by a smith."

In other words, you have to understand when a particular situation is one that makes revolution possible or not, and by what methods the working-class is waging its revolutionary struggle. In 1905 and 1917 it was via the soviets, in Eastern Europe after WWII it was via People's Democracy born of the anti-fascist military struggle, in Chile there was an effort to use the ballot box (which obviously ended badly), etc.


 No.9257

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Chikatilo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoly_Onoprienko

Is the meme that "The USSR didnt even believe it was possible for serial killers to exist in the USSR because they thought Serial Killers were a Bypdoduct of capitalism" true?


 No.9258

>>9257

I don't know if they considered it literally impossible for serial killers to exist, but Soviet authors did downplay the extent of violent crime in the USSR until Glasnost. On the other hand, compared to the US a lot of Soviet violent crime was committed by drunk people.




File: 67b96fd442baa37⋯.jpg (69.25 KB, 840x595, 24:17, Bakunin-VS-Marx1.jpg)

 No.9253[Reply]

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

 No.9254

Well, just saying "I'm a materialist" doesn't magically mean your analyses are correct.

Just like saying "I'm an atheist" doesn't make you an inherently rational person.




File: 8858864670180e8⋯.jpg (65.93 KB, 481x625, 481:625, bbea08c010bff957f049358fb7….jpg)

 No.9226[Reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 No.9227

>The only reason I ask these is because I've been toying with the idea of creating a party within the next few years.

I think you should give it a more modest name and outlook, e.g. Communist Organization/Group/Club of [whatever your university or town or city is].

Historically most communist parties formed out of existing smaller entities that already had some contact with workers, students and/or peasants/farmers in their locales, e.g. the St. Petersburg League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class.

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

The FRSO, WWP and PSL seem alright.

>In applying Marxism to American conditions, what are the most important things to focus on?

Whatever is relevant to the working people in the United States. Communist parties don't just focus on one or two things, although obviously they aren't meant to take over the work of entities focused on specific subjects (e.g. if there's an organization specifically to help Central American migrants, communists can work with it or create their own where necessary.)

>Do you think it is worth it, as a Marxist, to engage in local politics / run for local positions such as mayor / city councilor

If it doesn't exhaust a party's resources and there's a good chance of reaching people, yes.

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

Communists should point out that the capitalist class will resist peaceful efforts at political and economic power being obtained by the working-class, but it should be obvious that calling for the overthrow of the US government is foolish.

Already in the 19th century American Marxists explained their approach toward the subject:

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

 No.9228

>>9227

>I think you should give it a more modest name and outlook, e.g. Communist Organization/Group/Club of [whatever your university or town or city is].

This is a good suggestion, I think it would be a tad grandiose to attempt to found a “national party” right from the get-go with such small resources and barely any members. While I don’t necessarily anticipate anything really taking off one should always work within their limits and be able to recognize them clearly.

>it should be obvious that calling for the overthrow of the US government is foolish.

Yeah, of course. It would be extremely counterproductive in my opinion to do something stupid like kill cops or do bombings for no reason. I’m not opposed to illegalism per se but stuff like that just gives fuel to the reactionaries, especially when you have no one behind you. By militant I guess I meant more of stuff like open-carrying at counter-protests like the fascist rally in DC tomorrow or group outings to firing ranges. Stuff like that

On the issue of running for positions like mayor of my town or running for city council, I initially thought it to be a good idea, but now I wonder what exactly can be pushed through in those positions. The only things I can really think of are pay cuts for the upper positions. I’d have to look at my town’s laws. Thanks for all the help and suggestions as usual, Ismail.


 No.9229

>>9228

>On the issue of running for positions like mayor of my town or running for city council, I initially thought it to be a good idea, but now I wonder what exactly can be pushed through in those positions.

You should keep in mind that, even in a local election, it's almost impossible to get elected while running as an open communist. The reason parties like the PSL run candidates is to spread their message to a wider audience, they don't actually expect to change anything through the current political system (and even then I'm skeptical of how useful running for office is to communists, but that's a different discussion).


 No.9232

>>9229

>and even then I'm skeptical of how useful running for office is to communists, but that's a different discussion

I completely agree with you here. I wouldn't repudiate running in elections entirely if it is in one's resources, but I'm aware of the limits to its effectiveness and usefulness. The higher up you go the less you'd be able to change. It's important to never forget the class-character of the state.




File: 08c7cb56f05a0d1⋯.jpg (199.85 KB, 960x439, 960:439, N9QKzkxdVa5ISI9o9V681g5nYl….jpg)

 No.9201[Reply]

Hey everyone,

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

 No.9213

It would have been a good board but it seems to have turned into yet another fascist shithole. Not that I have a problem with talking with fascists online but the /pol/ flavor of it is unbearable


 No.9216

>>9213

That's the problem with having the board be "non-partisan". BO should ban everyone using /pol/speak




File: 1aba33ae097dc87⋯.jpg (30.71 KB, 258x300, 43:50, 1-karl-marx-russian-school.jpg)

 No.7739[Reply]

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

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

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

So far so good.

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

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

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

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

>The change in the quantity of the circulating medium is, in this case, it is true, caused by the money itself, yet not in virtue of its function as a medium of circulation, but of its function as a measurPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

89 posts and 16 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.9079

>>9062

>You evaded my question.

>you intentionally misconstrued Marx's words

>the stupidity of your allegation

>you either dishonestly or ignorantly implied

>You conveniently ignored

"Everyone who disagrees with me is simply dishonest."

This childish attitude makes it pointless to debate anything with you.

>...you either dishonestly or ignorantly implied that the Bolsheviks or CPC presided over a "democratic" (i.e. bourgeois) state, rather than having smashed the existing machinery operated by the bourgeoisie.

Lenin said,

It is said that a united apparatus was needed. Where did that assurance come from? Did it not come from that same Russian apparatus which, as I pointed out in one of the preceding sections of my diary, we took over from tsarism and slightly anointed with Soviet oil?

...

There is no doubt that that measure should have been delayed somewhat until we could say that we vouched for our apparatus as our own. But now, we must, in all conscience, admit the contrary; the apparatus we call ours is, in fact, still quite alien to us; it is a bourgeois and tsarist hotch-potch and there has been no possibility of getting rid of it in the course of the past five years without the help of other countries and because we have been "busy" most of the time with military engagements and the fight against famine.

...

...the union of socialist republics must be retained for its diplomatic apparatus. By the way, this apparatus is an exceptional component of our state apparatus. We have not allowed a single influential person from the old tsarist apparatus into it. All sections with any authority are composed of Communists. That is why it has already won for itself (this may be said boldly) the name of a reliable communist apparatus purged to an incomparably greater extent of the old tsarist, bourgeois and petty-bPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


 No.9080

>>9079

>"Everyone who disagrees with me is simply dishonest."

You're either dishonest or profoundly ignorant, and from what I've seen (e.g. writing that "winning the October Revolution does not equal building socialism" as if I had ever claimed it did) you tend toward the former.

I don't see the purpose in giving those Lenin quotes. In the first years after the revolution there were plenty of ex-Tsarists and other non-communists working in the state apparatus at a time when new communist cadres had yet to be trained to replace them. What does that have to do with the USSR of the 1930s-80s?

As Lenin pointed out, "We know very well that there are still many defects in the organisation of Soviet power in this country. Soviet power is not a miracle-working talisman. It does not, overnight, heal all the evils of the past—illiteracy, lack of culture, the consequences of a barbarous war, the aftermath of predatory capitalism. But it does pave the way to socialism. It gives those who were formerly oppressed the chance to straighten their backs and to an ever-increasing degree to take the whole government of the country, the whole administration of the economy, the whole management of production, into their own hands."

You're showing yet more dishonesty by selectively quoting Lenin's last writings in such a way as to imply that he thinks the October Revolution somehow created a bourgeois state apparatus. But that clearly isn't the case if you read all four works you linked to in their entirety, e.g. in regard to "Better Fewer, But Better" he explicitly writes that what exists is a workers' government with "heaps of the old lumber still lying around." He adds that the Bolsheviks "lack enough civilisation [i.e. culture, technical expertise] to enable us to pass straight on to socialism, although we do have the political requisites for it."

It is clear what he has in mind is improving the existing apparatus by removing its defects which were huge in 1923. That's why he writes, "Our state apparatus is so deplorable, not to say wretched, that we must firstPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at

 No.9081

File: 465465a1f41b235⋯.jpg (16.5 KB, 330x258, 55:43, 465465a1f41b235e0b968aad00….jpg)

>>9080

>You're either dishonest or profoundly ignorant, and from what I've seen (e.g. writing that "winning the October Revolution does not equal building socialism" as if I had ever claimed it did) you tend toward the former.

So uh, I'm the one who has been attempting to look up passages and help people understand Capital in this thread. The grand total of your posts related to Capital here has been zero. All you've done is derail, which you continue to do. And now you're making the exchange unproductive by engaging in personal attacks.

Guess what? You can answer questions on Capital from now on. I'm out. Bye.


 No.9083

>>9081

I only posted in the thread because I was requested to do so about a specific subject unrelated to Capital: >>9035

If you're wrong and resort to cherry-picking quotations on the subject of the USSR, that doesn't necessarily mean you are incapable of explaining aspects of Capital to newbies. For example, David Harvey is good at explaining Capital even if his actual politics leave much to be desired. Noam Chomsky is basically fine when discussing US foreign policy and the media, but turns into an idiot whenever the subject of socialism comes up (e.g. he's referred to Lenin as a "proto-fascist" and denounced Vietnam for its "aggression" against the Khmer Rouge.)

But if you want to throw a temper tantrum on a subject unrelated to Capital, and use that as an rationale to bail out of the thread altogether, I can't do anything about that.


 No.9203

bump for answers




File: f64a4bf7ea48ae8⋯.jpg (99.91 KB, 850x850, 1:1, 15635fa068c399dbc31b5bf6ca….jpg)

 No.9147[Reply]

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

1 post omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.9163

>>9147

>anarchists

>making a functioning society

Memeing aside though, I do think it should theoretically be possible, granted no capitalist powers exist anymore that would pose an imperialist threat.


 No.9170

>>9163

>What is Catalonia?


 No.9171

>>9170

Yeah, I like how that existed for decades on end without ever being interrupted by any outside powers!


 No.9189

>>9171

Now move the goalpost again.

Also functional socialism > functional state-capitalism any day.


 No.9202

>>9189

I don't think anarchist control over a city and some outlying rural areas for about a year is enough to describe it as "functional."

And there are criticisms of how things actually operated during that short period, e.g. see pages 323-333 of the following work: https://archive.org/stream/SpainTheUnfinishedRevolution/Spain%20The%20Unfinished%20Revolution#page/n168/mode/1up




File: d028806cb80b5af⋯.jpg (2.67 MB, 2500x1472, 625:368, __shana_shakugan_no_shana_….jpg)

 No.8537[Reply]

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

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

Many Antifa seem to buy into Russiagate.

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

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

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

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

The favored Bourgeois ideology is still neo-liberalism.

What I am not looking for:

<punching nazis is bad uwu

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

 No.8538

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

it is important not to fall into an ultra-leftist error in acting as if there's no significant difference between bourgeois democracy and a fascist regime (or, for that matter, any bourgeois-democratic government and an open dictatorship.)

Marxists have always sought to defend and extend bourgeois democracy against attempts by the bourgeoisie to limit and abolish it.

As Lenin put it, "The proletariat cannot be victorious except through democracy, i.e., by giving full effect to democracy and by linking with each step of its struggle democratic demands formulated in the most resolute terms. . . We must combine the revolutionary struggle against capitalism with a revolutionary programme and tactics on all democratic demands: a republic, a militia, the popular election of officials, equal rights for women, the self-determillation of nations, etc. While capitalism exists, these demands—all of them—can only be accomplished as an exception, and even then in an incomplete and distorted form. Basing ourselves on the democracy already achieved, and exposing its incompleteness under capitalism, we demand the overthrow of capitalism, the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, as a necessary basis both for the abolition of the poverty of the masses and for the complete and all-round institution of all democratic reforms. Some of these reforms will be started before the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, others in the course of that overthrow, and still others after it. The social revolution is not a single battle, but a period covering a series of battles over all sorts of problems of economic and democratic reform, which are consummated only by the expropriation of the bourgeoisie.

>Many Antifa seem to buy into Russiagate.

This is true, and should be criticized. As Karl Liebknecht put it, "the main enemy is at home." The idea that Americans should base their politics on whether something purportedly inconveniences Putin is stupid, and no different from conservatives who argued in 2002-2003 that opposition to the Iraq War "played into SaddPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


 No.9151

File: 7eb6eae3c497437⋯.png (342.85 KB, 611x777, 611:777, __alastor_and_shana_shakug….png)

>it is important not to fall into an ultra-leftist error in acting as if there's no significant difference between bourgeois democracy and a fascist regime (or, for that matter, any bourgeois-democratic government and an open dictatorship.)

Agreed, but Trump is not a fascist nor does the "Alt-Right" have any potential to take power to impose fascism. Fascism requires the support of the Bougeoisie and its state organs, which it does not.

>Whoever does not fight the reactionary measures of the bourgeoisie and the growth of fascism at these preparatory stages is not in a position to prevent the victory of fascism, but, on the contrary, facilitates that victory.

But the reactionary measures by the neo-liberal Bougeoisie to counter-attack against populism and socialism are not be done in the name of the "Alt-Right" or its causes; these measures (Such as censorship on Facebook and Google) are done in the name of "tolerance", "anti-racism", "stopping harassment" and (Yes!) "anti-fascism". I am not concerned with what the Trump will do so much as I am concerned with what his successor will do, which will be to implement these measures far more efficiently than the Trump Administration ever could.

>It is in decay, but obviously we're not in a depression, let alone a revolutionary situation.

The real crisis is that there is nothing to replace neo-liberalism. The Left has forgotten the biggest lesson of 2016 - almost nobody who works for a living cares about "Intersectionality", "owning your privilege", "interrupting systems of oppression" or "representation" by corporate mascots. The Right has grown flabby because it has such a weak and spineless "opposition".

>The main error of Antifa is that what they do isn't sufficient. ... This is something anarchists cannot achieve.

The real problem is that most of them aren't really Anarchists, their ideology could be described as "radical social-liberalism". Support of Russiagate shows that they have not left the dominant neo-liberal ideoloPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


 No.9153

File: 8dfe514376c53b5⋯.jpg (82.67 KB, 976x840, 122:105, 37ce2d332d4cb3a1cc261c6929….jpg)

>>9151

Just the other day some far-right mob trashed a socialist bookshop in London. Anti-Fascist Action was originally organized precisely because of these kinds of attacks. It is meant to be a network that can quickly respond to fascist provocations and deterrent them from attacking far-left events and organizations. It's not a potential threat in the far-away future, but a very real obstacle to street politics, which has always been the main venture of communist politics in capitalist societies.


 No.9182

>>9151

> I am not concerned with what the Trump will do so much as I am concerned with what his successor will do, which will be to implement these measures far more efficiently than the Trump Administration ever could.

I feel the same way. I'd honestly fear a Democrat who comes after him, pumped up on Russiagate and NatSec flag-waving garbage, and in the name of that wanting to trample on constitutional rights. I guarantee M-L's who have tweeted/facebooked anything even bordering on support Syria, DPRK, Iran, Venezuela, etc would be in danger. That's actual fascism.




File: 4192626fe8772f8⋯.jpg (26.46 KB, 960x893, 960:893, karl marx smiley.jpg)

 No.9173[Reply]

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

WTF is up with such "leftists"???

 No.9175

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

I’m sure there’s a mix of both groups. Obviously at the end of the day /leftypol/ is just an imageboard, not a super serious forum, so posters there just for fun are inevitable. It’s the same with /pol/, I have a feeling that most of the people there don’t care about politics beyond being edgy and having a good time. Not that there’s anything wrong with having a bit of fun, obviously. If I had to guess though the lefty boards will have more people familar with the material at least superficially, with a small minority truly well-read and another minority of shitposters and edgelords.


 No.9180

>>9175

This. I actually got into marxism through /leftypol/ a few months back, but the more I also try to get involved with real life politics, the more I realize the views of people on imageboards are often not as nuanced or well-informed as I'd like them to be, and it's important to keep in mind what an imageboard essentially is as you say.




File: 9072ef307a8c06f⋯.jpg (122.42 KB, 800x445, 160:89, 1m.jpg)

 No.8893[Reply]

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

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

8 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.8918

>>8916

I just say that the state is an instrument of rule by a certain class. There may be democracy under capitalism, but it is inherently limited and whatever broadening of it occurs is due to struggles by working people, not by the good-heartedness of the capitalists. And at the end of the day, when capitalists feel threatened, they will use the state to carry out repression against the people.

The workers' state also has to have repressive functions to put down attempts at counter-revolution by overthrown classes and foreign imperialists. On the other hand, proletarian democracy is (as Lenin put it) "a million times more democratic than the most democratic bourgeois republic," because it is democracy based upon the vast majority of the population.

Post last edited at

 No.9110

Sorry just talking from my impression here, what is the difference between DOTP and acient Sparta? Besides which social class rules, they have very similar social structure. On the other hand, should DOTP take the blame of failure in real-existed socialism states? The failure of a state could be many reasons, probably more economical and military. I don't see acient Athens' downfall being blamed as "failure of democracy", or the decline of Netherlands Republic as "failure of capitalism"


 No.9118

>>9110

>Sorry just talking from my impression here, what is the difference between DOTP and acient Sparta? Besides which social class rules, they have very similar social structure.

I don't see the similarities.


 No.9133

>>9110

My question to you is where do you even see any similarities between Sparta and what Marxists call the DOTP. When I think of ancient Sparta the first thing I think about is the Helot-system, the Helots being those who the Spartans conquered and enslaved to exploit economically and greatly outnumbered the Spartans. These people and the conquered who were not slaves (perioikoi) "those who live round about" still lacked Spartan citizen rights. These Helots were essentially serfs and were defined by ancient commentators as being somewhere "between slave and free" and were collectively owned by Sparta, who annually declared a state of war on the Helots and were legally sanctioned to murder them without fear of reprisal. Not to mention things like Krypteia (more small-scale killings). This forced labor is what allowed the Spartiates to have their peculiar social organization. Now on the topic of the Spartan state, there were the two kings and the council of elders which formulated proposals for all adult male Spartan citizens to vote on. Five overseers (ephors) were elected each year by the adult Spartan males, counterbalancing the power of the oligarchic council and the kings and endowed with extensive judicial powers and punishment. Let's also remember that in Hitler's Zweites Buch Hitler praises Sparta as the first "racial state" for it's infanticide of the deformed and unwanted

I'd be curious to know how, in any way, an ancient Greek slave-society ruled by a council of geriatric oligarchs and two kings with a democratic element shoehorned in is similar in social structure to the proletariat organized as the ruling class in society. On a side-note, it would be very interesting to see a Marxist analysis of class-struggle in Sparta.

Sources:

Slavery in Ancient Greece by N.R.E. Fisher

Ancient Greece From Prehistoric to Hellenistic Times by Thomas R. Martin


 No.9136

>>9110

The similarity of social structure you perceived, is due to the "transitional nature" of ancient society and modern socialist society:

Primitive Commune -> Ancient City State -> Medieval Kingdom

Capitalist Nation State -> Socialist Union -> World Communism

In the example of ancient Sparta, it is the dictatorship of free citizens over the slaves. However, because of just advancing from primitive commune era, the political structure of Sparta retained many remnants of "communist past", hence the similarity you perceived.

But one must also notice that the essence of USSR and ancient Sparta were totally different, because USSR general direction was to become more communistic, but Sparta general direction was to become more individualistic, despite the effort of ancient tribal nobility class to keep the superstructure of ancient commune. Plato's Republic was a clear example of this line of struggle, that keeping the "good" superstructure of ancient commune, but with the "benefit" of new economic relation (exploitation of slaves). Needless to say, his ideas was utopian.




File: 78dc3994606388e⋯.jpg (26.78 KB, 400x400, 1:1, 326866.jpg)

 No.9117[Reply]

>Shit on Christians

>"Haha, comrade, fuck Christians,"

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

>Shit on Islam

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

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

 No.9120

Because if you happen to live in a Muslim country there is a massively higher chance you'll die from an American bomb.


 No.9123

It's due to the perceived concern that one is "shitting on Islam" from a chauvinist point of view, e.g. that Muslims are savages incapable of living in a modern society. In the 19th century US there was a similar mixing of anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant sentiment, with Protestants arguing that Catholics followed the Pope and were thus a danger to democracy and progress.

Calling Islam "arguably the most reactionary religion on earth" isn't useful, since any religion can be turned toward reactionary or progressive purposes by its believers. For example, the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan had many Muslims within its ranks. The Arab socialist regimes were/are all led by Muslims.

I've talked to Indians who argue that Hinduism is "the most reactionary" religion due to the caste system, which leads to absurdities like this: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-43605550 ("Indian lowest-caste Dalit man killed 'for owning horse'")

But again, the idea of separating religions into "good" and "bad" is wrongheaded. Religion itself is a phenomenon that will one day cease to exist, but it is called into being by material circumstances, and new interpretations of religious doctrine emerge in accordance with these circumstances, e.g. Ali Shariati and the Ayatollah Khomeini had very different views on Islam and their ideas competed for influence in the formative period of the Iranian Revolution.

Post last edited at

 No.9134

>>9117

Because it's become one of the favorite scapegoats for the modern (far) right in the West, whereas it's not rare for those rightists to be christians themselves.


 No.9135

I don’t think you did anything wrong but you have to understand that some people have a simplistic dualistic point of views. So, if the US targets Muslims then that Islam must be unironically good.

I would raise the issue of the US and Britain supporting radical Islam in your defense.




File: b6a4dbfe6b00fa3⋯.png (36.63 KB, 1265x632, 1265:632, north_korea_flag_by_marios….png)

 No.5141[Reply]

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

I mean

>it still socialist state?

>the party there still marxist-leninst one?

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

thanks /marx/

40 posts and 12 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.9124

>>9115

>>9122

Just looked up the Vatan Party, that's some hardcore NazBol stuff wtf.

By the way, the WPK does participate in the IMCWP - many more eurocommunist and more moderate parties go there, so that's an exception.


 No.9125

>>9112

The DPRK, as you note, considers Juche an advance over Marxism-Leninism and has increasingly emphasized the "indigenous" nature of its revolution and theories, especially since 1991.

They continue to uphold Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin as precursors though, hence Kim Jong Il's work "Respecting the Forerunners of the Revolution is a Noble Moral Obligation of Revolutionaries."

>>9124

The DPRK seems to solicit support from wherever it can obtain it, no matter how dubious. Hence the absurdities noted in this link: https://www.nknews.org/2013/05/white-power-and-apocalyptic-cults-pro-dprk-americans-revealed/

Post last edited at

 No.9127

>>9125

It's worth noting that they have written several letters to the guy to stop posting white supremacist stuff. So it's obvious they don't actually agree with it.


 No.9129

>>9127

That's true, but it's still pretty ridiculous that DPRK officials thought it'd be a good idea to send propaganda materials to two persons living in a remote trailer who claimed to uphold Pol Pot and Jim Jones.

DPRK officials did actually visit and send materials to Jonestown back in the day, but that was a communal settlement of a thousand people on good terms with the Guyanese government (which was itself friendly to the DPRK), so at least that made sense.

Also, years ago I contacted a guy who was ostensibly the co-founder of the "Songun Politics Study Group (USA)" with John Paul Cupp back in 2003. This is what he wrote:

>When I was eighteen I decided to drop out of society and await the inevitable collapse of capitalist civilization that I thought to be imminent at the time. After travelling around a bit I settled into a homeless encampment in Portland, Oregon called, "Dignity Village." I met Cupp at this camp and when he found that I was also a Marxist we became friends. Cupp is a natural fanatic and he was constantly creating a whole alphabet soup of 1-3 organizations, I'm sure there is probably a psychological explanation for his obsessive personality. One day, he asked me if I wanted to be a part of the DPRK solidarity group he was starting and I said it sounded fine to me without giving it much thought. I was pretty startled the next week when we were mentioned by name in the KCNA. I always had my reservations about the DPRK, but I trusted Cupp at the time as I thought him to be a stalwart Marxist-Leninist and as a bit of a punk kid I also just liked that it shocked people. . . .

>Unfortunately, I no longer have any of the materials that we were sent during my time as "general secretary." We used to get New Years cards each year and packages with CD's of propaganda. I remember one was half anti-American punk rock from South Korea (including a song that compared George W. Bush to some sort of sponge cake) and half traditional DPRK propaganda about how lotus flowers fell from heaven when Kim Jong Il was born and stuff like that. In addition to this, tPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at

 No.9131

>>9116

>But still wouldnt it be good to at least mention it in there somewhere to dissuade confusion of the DPRK's long term goal and to "Keep their eyes on the prize" so to speak?

The Cuban constitution does that ("The Communist Party of Cuba. . . guides the common effort toward the goals of the construction of socialism and the progress toward a communist society") but the constitutions of China, Vietnam and Laos do not.

On the other hand, it seems a bit unnecessary for a constitution of a socialist country to say "also we want communism one day," so I don't think it matters. To give a similar example, Cuba is merely called the Republic of Cuba and its flag has been the exact same since 1902. It doesn't need to call itself the Democratic People's Soviet Socialist Republic of Cuba and replace the star on said flag with a hammer and sickle to "prove" it's genuinely socialist.

Post last edited at



File: 7b259fe64be25c0⋯.jpg (72.15 KB, 475x708, 475:708, DH6d2tTUIAMGhxW.jpg)

 No.8718[Reply]

"Power to the people"

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

Is Marxism inherently contradictory?

 No.8719

The primary purpose of every state is to allow one class to wield power and to suppress attempts by rival classes to overthrow it.

A workers' state is a dictatorship of the proletariat, ready to oppress a tiny minority of exploiters who resist expropriation, while this same state promotes democracy for the overwhelming majority of the population.

As Lenin pointed out, "Bourgeois democracy, although a great historical advance in comparison with medievalism, always remains, and under capitalism is bound to remain, restricted, truncated, false and hypocritical, a paradise for the rich and a snare and deception for the exploited, for the poor."

Lenin also noted that under bourgeois democracy "the majority of the population is debarred from participation in public and political life."

The basis of Soviet democracy was mass participation and of educating workers and peasants in how to administer a whole country on a voluntary, unpaid basis. Here is a good read on that subject: https://archive.org/details/WorkingVersusTalkingDemocracy

Once class distinctions are done away with on a world scale, the primary purpose of the state no longer applies, and "the state" as a distinct entity from society will completely wither away.

Post last edited at

 No.8796

>>8719

>"the state" as a distinct entity from society will completely wither away.

yeah nah this sounds like "the wealth will trickle down", you know what I mean? :^)


 No.8797

File: 48876957514b735⋯.jpg (64.01 KB, 611x404, 611:404, 2e99mh.jpg)

ebin mene :DDDDD


 No.8798

>>8796

Not really. If you want to abolish the state, you have to get rid of the material conditions that make states necessary. If you tried to abolish the state tomorrow, you would fail.

You don't see movements in Europe or the US (or anywhere, really) to reinstate feudalism, and any attempt to recreate a feudal society would break down since it is so obviously inferior to capitalism.


 No.9126

>>8718

Your mom is inherently contradictory. She's married to your dad but she's fucking me.




File: ddb7092c3d52961⋯.jpg (2.92 MB, 2635x3777, 2635:3777, mao.jpg)

 No.7058[Reply]

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

1 post and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.7060

>>7059

Could you point me to a specific page (or pages) that explains how MLM is a rupture from, and not just a continuation of, ML? I know about that book and I intend to read it sometime (thanks for the pdf), but I have some other books I wanna get through first.


 No.7536

>>7060

Well consider the title: rupture and continuity

>MLM is a rupture from, and not just a continuation of, ML

if you knew dialectics, you'd know that rupture and continuity are part of the same process


 No.7537

>>7536

OP here. I've actually read the entire book now and I feel like I have a better understanding of MLM. There are parts of MLM (the way the book portrays MLM, at least) I really like, although I'm still not sure I agree with all of it.


 No.7547

There was a thread where I argued with Ismail on that. Can't remember where it is. Maybe Ismail knows and can bring it back here.

TLTR; Maoism/MLM is a rupture from ML.


 No.9111

>>7059

Just my reading from Mao's last work in 1976, his major concern was the socialism state still functions in capitalism exchange logic and has a market, bourgeois rights still exists, thus capitalists will sooner or later come back, and pointed out the class struggle is not over even in a Socialist state, major contradictions in society such as urban-rural differences, blue collar-white collar labor differences, etc., these differences are not solved. Thus he called for "continue revolution under the dictatorship of proletarian", and pointed out the class struggle is not over even in a Socialist state, major contradictions in society such as urban-rural differences, blue collar-white collar labor differences, etc., these differences are not solved.

This whole idea is originted from Marx's critique of the Gotha Program, so it is clearly an extension reading of Marxism.




Delete Post [ ]
[]
Previous [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
| Catalog | Nerve Center | Cancer
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / arepa / ausneets / ecopol / leftpol / sl / sonyeon / vichan ]