[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / choroy / eros / fascist / jenny / tk / vfur / vichan ]

/marx/ - Marxism

It makes you smart

Catalog   Archive

Winner of the 75nd Attention-Hungry Games
/caco/ - Azarath Metrion Zinthos

March 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
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

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

 No.14343

File: 659414f89492726⋯.jpg (852.9 KB, 1700x1233, 1700:1233, __furutani_himawari_and_oo….jpg)

>>9942

>>9946

IIRC, it was Jim Profit.




File: f06f26c37acc5ca⋯.jpg (130.31 KB, 575x800, 23:32, Patrice Lumumba.jpg)

 No.13097[Reply]

Old thread: https://8ch.net/marx/res/11618.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.

710 posts and 48 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
Post last edited at

 No.14366

was the Maidan-Revolution a coup organized by western imperialist powers?


 No.14369

>>14355

Very briefly, Mao held that "capitalist roaders" within the Communist Party of China (epitomized by Liu Shaoqi who was denounced as "China's Khrushchev") had taken over important posts with the intent of overthrowing socialism. He incited the party's rank-and-file, the army, and students to oppose these supposed traitors. This led to mass repressions.

At the same time there was a frenzied campaign to "revolutionize" society: army ranks were abolished, universities were closed down, historical sites razed, and Mao Zedong Thought was accorded an exalted status to the extent that even doctors and surgeons were told to utilize it to treat their patients.

The Cultural Revolution was clearly a failure, not only because it ended up highly unpopular but also because its main supporters besides Mao themselves ended up defeated: Lin Biao was accused of trying to plan a military coup against Mao and his plane crashed while fleeing, and the Gang of Four were arrested after Mao's deaths. Liu Shaoqi's reputation was posthumously rehabilitated under Deng (as were practically all the other "capitalist roaders") and the Cultural Revolution officially denounced as a disaster.

Lots of people died, yes. Obviously not the same as during the Great Leap Forward, but there was no shortage of cases where persons were arbitrarily deemed "counter-revolutionary" and mistreated.

>>14356

See pages 46-50 of the following work: https://archive.org/details/IsTheRedFlagFlying/page/n25

>>14357

Obviously it was a problem in planning (one of the major criticisms of planned economies is that they are supposedly incapable of evaluating consumer wants.) I'm not an economist nor consider myself capable of proposing hoPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at

 No.14370

Why are the same wealthy families that exist in China today the same ones that existed before the revolution? some explanations i've heard were that considering the national bourgeoisie was never as 100% expropriated like in Russia, this isn't very surprising. Does this confirm that the Cultural Revolution was completely idealistic?


 No.14371

>>14370

Mao held that the remnants of the national bourgeoisie constituted no major threat (which I'd say is correct), whereas "capitalist roaders" supposedly in control of much of the party machinery were in a position to restore capitalism in the entire economy (as Khrushchev and Brezhnev were accused of having done.) Ergo the Cultural Revolution aimed to get rid of such purported counter-revolutionaries.

But yeah here's one example (by an author traveling to China with a bunch of Westerners) of how national capitalists were treated under Mao:

>I began a conversation in English with our host, Wong Jong-yi, who spoke it fluently, having spent two years in Birmingham as a trainee in a mill. Without hesitation he told me that in 1949, at the outbreak of the revolution, he had fled to Hong Kong with his wife and three children. He had dreaded the arrival of the Communists, who not only stripped all the bourgeois of their possessions, but also, it was said, practiced 'common ownership of women.' The following year he had gone back to China to see for himself. Presumably provided with solid guarantees, he had returned to Hong Kong to fetch his wife. The children had followed the next year. He told me that he still spent a couple of weeks every year in Hong Kong, where some of his relatives were still living. He explained that since 1955 his mill had been a joint enterprise of 'workers and capitalists cooperating to increase production.' He spoke about the terrible poverty of the Chinese cotton workers after the war, at the time of the Kuomintang. China had then imported 90 per cent of her cotton from the United States, and the Chinese mills had served only as finishing shops for the American cloth. The smaller workshops had had to close down, and the same process, repeated in other industries, had resulted in complete economic dependence. Like a few other liberal industrialists, he felt that China could become and remain a nation only by gaining her economic freedom. That was why he had freely decided to cooperate with the Communist Party, which was the only party pursuing that aim. . . .

>We carried on a commonplace and lePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at

 No.14372

File: efb724b2b3c6fa3⋯.jpeg (105.66 KB, 640x640, 1:1, 7B452EC3-457F-48B2-8C64-3….jpeg)

What is the difference between material-balance planning and input-output planning?




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

 No.10645[Reply]

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.

568 posts and 58 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.14358

Was the Soviet Army in Poland an Invasion?

Btw can you give me the rundown on the Afghanistan War and Soviet involvement and if and how america is responsible?

And is the financing of rebel groups in capitalist states from the Soviet union comparable with Capitalist states founding terrorist groups?


 No.14362

>>14358

>Btw can you give me the rundown on the Afghanistan War and Soviet involvement and if and how america is responsible?

I asked about Afghanistan some time ago, perhaps some of the questions will be of interest to you. Here are Ismail's answers:

>>12957

>>12967

>>12980


 No.14364

What are some of Stalin's most important achievements and greatest successes? Obviously victory in WW2, but what else? What are some of his lessons that we should take with us into the future?


 No.14365

>>14364

Adding to his question, does Stalin really deserve the credit for the victory against Germany even if he greatly weakened the Red Army with the purges?


 No.14368

>>14358

>Was the Soviet Army in Poland an Invasion?

There's legal arguments over whether the Polish government had fled Poland's territory or not, so whether it was an invasion can be debated. But what can't be debated are two facts:

1. The Polish army was smashed by the Nazis, and the latter would have taken all of Poland had not the Soviets intervened.

2. The Soviets moved into ethnically Ukrainian and Byelorussian territories that were only "Polish" by virtue of Poland's invasion of Soviet Russia a little less than 20 years earlier.

>Btw can you give me the rundown on the Afghanistan War and Soviet involvement and if and how america is responsible?

>>14362 quoted my earlier posts on the subject.

>And is the financing of rebel groups in capitalist states from the Soviet union comparable with Capitalist states founding terrorist groups?

No. The Mujahideen, Contras and Renamo are not morally or politically equivalent to the ANC, SWAPO, PLO, and other groups the Soviets supported.

>>14364

Obviously the construction of socialism in the USSR, for all the problems associated with it, was Stalin's major achievement alongside the defeat of fascism.

>>14365

Yes. Any objective portrait of Stalin would show he wasn't some incredible genius nor flawless on military matters, but Zhukov and others who worked with Stalin during the Great Patriotic War note that he quickly grasped what had to be done militarily and generally displayed competence.




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

 No.13578[Reply]

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

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

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

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

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

 No.14204

How was the press in Yugo? I've heard they were more liberal in that regard than USSR. Were newspapers other than from the state allowed?


 No.14212

File: 079e9143978b531⋯.jpg (70.09 KB, 500x750, 2:3, i'll be back marx.jpg)

>>14204

The press was very relaxed, as far as it was about humor, satire, art etc. But if it went too far into politics, critique of the ruling people or critique of the party, it was stopped.

There was a group of marxist intellectuals in the 2nd half of the 60's that named themselves the Praxis groups as they founded the marxist paper Praxis - it was an international collaboration of Yugoslav, French and other foreign marxists. They grew out of a smaller group that alrady in the late 40's - after the split with USSR and Informbiro - started "a new reading" of Marx.

They were highly critical of the so-called marked socialism and the ruling powers didn't like it one bit, so they were forbidden to publish said paper, but it was published for 10 years ('64-'74).

There were also some student publications such as Tribuna, which was never baned, and also a group of students in the 50's started publishing Revija 57, which was baned after 1 year.

Later you had stuff like Mladina (which is still being published today) which satirized actual day-to-day political ongoings and politicians, but they were already liberal scum. They also wrote about films, contemporary art etc. They heavily favored the West and all that.

There were also a few pornographic magazines in Yugoslavia, which I think was the only socialist state to allow them. One of them was the Croatian Erotika, started in 1984. Another was Vroči Kaj from Slovenia, but there were a few others. Vroči Kaj did start only in 1989 though, but after the counter-revolution victory it was banned as the first new government in Slovenia was catholic and a bit conservative. It luckily didn't last long. Also in Socialist republic Slovenia pornography was completely de-criminalized in 1986 and the first pornographic film was being played in Ljubljana which was seen by more than 100.000 viewers.


 No.14241

Can someone recommend books on how Yugoslavia's economy functioned?


 No.14244

>>14241

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

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

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

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


 No.14367

>>14241

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

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

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

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




File: a7625c40b2aaed8⋯.png (26.59 KB, 137x150, 137:150, PROPAGANDA (22).png)

 No.14257[Reply]

What do you think of the next economic crisis, do you think there is a change to a Revolution, or we have to wait till a big one?

THREAD on Economic Crisis

 No.14303

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.




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

 No.12460[Reply]

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?

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

 No.12946

>>12930

If the gentlemen said that we communists can destroy countries without firing a shot, then it would be a flatter, because every communist revolution happened before always shed blood.

Again, which kind of abstract "countries" are you talking about? If it is a country exploiting people all over the world just for the sake of ever accumulation of wealth for the rich gentlemen, then of course we communists are against it.


 No.12947

>>12939

Your word is nothing but A = B. Devoid of any content.


 No.14216

capitalism or communism, life doesn't end here.

whatever be the economy, people need to be elevated from all kind of slavery and be free to pursue social growth, spiritual growth and be able to become self realized. A city may be prosperous economically but lack opportunity for social and spiritual growth.

People are working 8 hours a day so that they can get more and more physical pleasure and those who can't blame themselves for not being a a better wage cuck.


 No.14236

>>12460

It started out as an attempt to free humanity from the chains of capital. However, after the failed revolutions that occurred in Europe post ww1 it has mostly degraded into a pipe dream with no clear cohesive goal. This is why most "communist" movements after that time period were ultimately just nationalist movements.


 No.14237

>>14236

>it has mostly degraded into a pipe dream with no clear cohesive goal.

I don't know how you can say that with the experience of the Comintern, the rise of the People's Democracies in Europe and Asia after WWII, and such things as the 1957, 1960 and 1969 international conferences of communist and workers' parties.




File: 2f4fbe8dafa77c7⋯.jpg (483.25 KB, 706x839, 706:839, Mr Jones Goes to Washingto….jpg)

 No.10430[Reply]

Today is the 40th anniversary of the mass murder-suicides at Jonestown.

I intended to publish a big ol' article on Jim Jones, Peoples Temple and Jonestown, but I got busy and kept on finding new sources, so my quest to write a Marxist overview of this utopian cult shall have to wait another day.

To compensate, here's excerpts from one of many books I've read (based largely on interviews with a survivor named Odell Rhodes):

(pages 89-90, Rhodes was a heroin addict who agreed to join)

>Rhodes. . . was introduced to the Temple's version of social services: an appointment with a specialist to check his chronically inflamed leg; another spe­cialist to check his eyes; a trip to the dentist. He was given money to buy a special orthopedic shoe, new eyeglasses, and new clothes. "I couldn't believe it, anything you needed, all you had to do was ask for it. It wasn't just that you didn't have to pay, it was the difference between trying to get something out of welfare, standing in lines and filling out forms, and just asking for what you needed."

>At night, there were Temple meetings, but with Jones away in Cuba [touring it to report its achievements back to the Temple], the meetings were bland discussions of routine Temple busi­ness punctuated by an occasional testimony—someone thanking Jim Jones in absentia for that particular day's blessings. . .

>A few days later two counselors. . . called Rhodes into an office and went over a short list of Temple rules. When they came to the prohibition against alcohol, drugs, and tobacco, they slowed down and took special care to explain the reason behind the prohibition. Rhodes, who thought he had heard it all before, was surprised to learn that the People's Tem­ple's objection was on the grounds that mind-altering substances were means by which the ruling class controlled and exploited the poor. Rhodes simply nodded and filed the explanation away for fu­ture reference, but he was beginning to realize that this "church" he had joined was somehow different than other churches.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
6 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
Post last edited at

 No.10449

File: 6344e6514468d0e⋯.jpg (213.8 KB, 515x623, 515:623, Jim Jones holds two kittie….jpg)

>>10446

"A Thousand Lives" by Julia Scheeres is probably the best overall intro, and is an average length of 250 pages. You can find it in EPUB format here: http://b-ok.cc/book/1289547/bfc852

"The Road to Jonestown" by Jeff Guinn is the most recent. It's good, although early parts drag a bit due to Guinn's desire to reveal as much about Jones' childhood and the activities of his parents as possible. EPUB: http://b-ok.cc/book/2957275/d4d71f

"Raven" by Tim Reiterman was published only a few years after the mass murder-suicides but remains a must-read if you're interested in the subject (emphasis on the word "interested," because it's 600 pages.) EPUB: http://b-ok.cc/book/3413338/873d26

There are many other books on Jones, the Temple and Jonestown from ex-members, academics, and journalists, but the first three I gave should be sufficient if you're just curious to learn more. If you ever want info on a certain book though, feel free to ask since I've made it a goal to read as many on the subject as possible.

Post last edited at

 No.10705

Did Jones write anything?


 No.10706

File: c0105b73cbb3340⋯.jpg (44.46 KB, 768x503, 768:503, Jim Jones at rally.jpg)

>>10705

Not really. His main text is a pamphlet pointing out inconsistencies in the King James Bible, which isn't a particularly remarkable accomplishment.

On the other hand, Jones did have many of his sermons recorded (as well as many speeches made in Jonestown.) The one I always show people is in his California days where he answers the question "What is the greater antagonism, is it race, is it religion or is it class?": http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/nas/streaming/dept/scuastaf/collections/peoplestemple/MP3/Q929.MP3

While his answer is somewhat simplistic by Marxist standards, it isn't difficult to see how he could captivate an audience which knows nothing about socialism.


 No.10754

>>10706

Fantastic speech. Thank you for sharing.


 No.14213

File: dbc78ffd76a297b⋯.jpg (237.93 KB, 669x648, 223:216, It is Jim Jones.jpg)

As a note, "Jonestown Carnage: A CIA Crime" (a 1987 Soviet book) is now online: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/nas/streaming/dept/scuastaf/collections/peoplestemple/JonestownCarnage.pdf

The authors claim that the communal settlement was killed by the CIA due to its political stands. I don't agree (and I think its evidence is weak), but the book is still of mild interest since it includes reports of Soviet personnel visiting the settlement before the deaths, and makes the cult's own politics abundantly clear.

According to a Russian guy I know, it's possible the first two authors' names are pseudonyms (he can't find anything about them), whereas the third author is nowadays involved in writing a multivolume history of Russian intelligence. Western sources back in the day ridiculed the book as an example of KGB "disinformation," although there's no definite proof of that.




File: dfbd86704e06f2c⋯.jpg (23.19 KB, 383x342, 383:342, ugoku, ugoku.jpg)

 No.14180[Reply]

I watched and left a comment on a youtube video recently, and someone replied to me saying "Value is of the order of relationship, not monadic property. But Marx presupposes (as you do here after him), that there is such a thing as "the" value of a given labor."

I know that Marx said that Value is the socially necessary labour time to produce a commodity, but here this guy is arguing for the subjective theory of value, and is saying that value cannot be calculated, only compared. Can this be argued against? Aren't we using different definitions of value? When I say that the worker's surplus value is being taken from them, what does that actually mean?

Sorry if my question is basic or incomprehensible.

1 post omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.14184

>>14183

thanks!


 No.14206

>>14180

>this guy is arguing for the subjective theory of value

Except he isn't.


 No.14209

>>14180

>>monadic

What a nerd, I'd just say inherent here.

>>But Marx presupposes (as you do here after him), that there is such a thing as "the" value of a given labor."

According to what Marx said in Capital, multiple units of the same product existing in the same time and place can have different origin stories in terms of how each of them was produced, and yet each has the same value. Also consider that Marx talked about over-produced quantities of a product, and when he did that, he didn't call it something like misdirected value, rather he talked about that huge quantity then only having the value corresponding to the work that would have made the appropriate lower amount. So value as used by Marx is a relational concept.

>here this guy is arguing for the subjective theory of value

I don't know whether he's doing that just based on the snippet you gave here.


 No.14210

>>14180

Well IDK what the hell monadic whatever means, but things don' 'have' value in the sense they have color or a shape.

But what Heinrich writrs in his Critique of Political Economy is also nonsense - that things 'get' exchange value only in the exchange part, because he says we cannot measure abstract value, which is of course another nonsensical conclusion.

Heinrich is opposed to the idea that Marx supported the labour theory of value and holds that instead he had a monetary theory of value, which is again a weird argument from him.

Science rests on the testability of its propositions and has to be wary of hypothesising causal entities which are in principle unmeasurable. If we say with Heinrich that the labour time that creates value can not be independently measured, can only be inferred from the price at which things sell, then you no longer have a testable theory. There is nothing to distinguish it scientifically from a theory that says that it is electricity that is the source of value, but not the common vulgar electricity measured by meters, instead value is determined by social electricity.


 No.14211

>>14210

Oopps. Wantes to write 'cannot measure abstract labour'




File: 5f84b5b2a9610af⋯.jpg (46.67 KB, 800x1006, 400:503, IMG_20180723_115912.jpg)

 No.14014[Reply]

I agree with marxist leninist economics, I think Marx is right about class, colonialism, imperialism, and about revolutionary struggle. I'm an Irish Catholic, so I understand revolutionary struggle. What I can't get past is the hatred for my mother church. I can't understand the persecution of innocent Catholics from almost every communist regime/movement in history. This is what repulses me from your cause. I genuinely want an open discussion here, why must Catholicism be persecuted under a Communist state?

1 post omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.14027

>>14014

>>14021

In other word, the communists have no reason to prosecute Catholic believers if they don't side with the Vatican and bourgeois states oversea.


 No.14036

>>14027

>catholic

>not side with the Vatican

Is this what people call "a complete refusal to cooperate"?


 No.14040

>>14036

Yeah that person worded his post poorly.

The USSR and other socialist countries sought to establish amicable relations between their states and the Vatican, although obviously that doesn't mean they tolerated political interference from one state (which Vatican City is) in another.


 No.14049

File: 5880d6ff4faea20⋯.jpg (1.4 MB, 1577x975, 1577:975, christcom.jpg)

>>14014

Socialists who reject other socialists for their faith are not my comrade


 No.14193

>>14014

You can look up to third world priests in latin america. They were pretty much socialists (I am not sure if they were completely marxists). Some catholic humanist values are extremely compatible with marxists intentions, only that they're not grounded on materialistic bases. Also, you can notice how it was essentially capitalism and modernity what killed religiosity, so you have some ground for interactions between the two.




File: 9b28b371ed41668⋯.png (112.16 KB, 500x434, 250:217, book-peter-d-kropotkin-the….png)

 No.13824[Reply]

I'm just starting to get into Marxism, and I still hold on to some of my previous Anarcho-Communist ideas and habits. I've been told that Marxists don't really like Anarchists. Basically, What is the Marxist critique of anarchism? More specifically, the Marxist critique of Kropotkin and anarcho communism? I also accept book recommendations on the subject ^^

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

 No.13929

>>13926

>Talking about the Continental Army is irrelevant, not only because warfare over 200 years ago was very different

Warfare during the American revolution still was guerrilla based (first green text below) a lot of time and mechanization and air support aren't that useful or relevant in such engagements.

>George Washington sent militia units with limited Continental Army support to launch raids and ambushes on British detachments and forage parties, the militia, and Continental Army support would skirmish with British detachments in small-scale battles and engagements. Throughout the Forage War, British casualties exceeded past 900. The Forage War raised morale for the Patriots as their guerrilla operations against the British were very effective.

In conventional warfare supply chains were still good enough in various anarchist territories tanks were manufactured, so discard the idea that this somehow slows productive forces and results in you always being outmatched by counter revolutionaries.

>as was the nature of the British trying to hold onto vast territory with limited means at their disposal

Capitalists are in the exact same situation

>And while we're on the subject of the Continental Army, George Washington undertook to more firmly organize it, against the view of Charles Lee and others who wanted the army to remain basically an assortment of militias.

Washington was a competent leader and he wanted them under his personal command, but this isn't in anyway connected to Soviets because they put power in the hands of the organization( evidenced by the changing of leadership), not an El Generalissimo though


 No.13935

>>13929

Again, in modern warfare militias simply aren't sufficient. For example, "Subsequently, an official statement from the FAI itself pointed out inadequacies of the militia in fighting the War against a modern army. . . 'We paid dearly for the loyalty to our ideas which we maintained for so long. Would the rebellious forces have been able to go from Sevilla to Badajoz and from Badajoz to the doors of Madrid, if we had not opposed for so long, and so bitterly, the organisation of the army which we needed to fight the enemy? Our militias, without firing practice, without military training, disordered, which held plenums and assemblies before going into battle, which discussed all orders, and often refused to comply with them, could not confront the formidable military apparatus which Germany and Italy provided to the Rebels...'" (Robert J. Alexander, Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War Volume I, 1999, p. 186.)

>Capitalists are in the exact same situation

No they aren't. The Spanish Civil War and Operation Barbarossa have next to nothing to do with the American Revolution's warfare between the British and guerrillas.

>Washington was a competent leader and he wanted them under his personal command, but this isn't in anyway connected to Soviets because they put power in the hands of the organization( evidenced by the changing of leadership), not an El Generalissimo though

The Red Army was far more centralized than Washington's forces and Red Army leaders explicitly opposed efforts to make militias the basis of the country's armed forces.


 No.14075

File: c99caf6de69df26⋯.png (700.38 KB, 2400x978, 400:163, 59m03vbtuff21.png)

>>13935

>No they aren't. The Spanish Civil War and Operation Barbarossa have next to nothing to do with the American Revolution's warfare between the British and guerrillas.

They do though. Guerrilla warfare is still hiding in bushes, but now with some land mines and that it.

>'We paid dearly for the loyalty to our ideas which we maintained for so long. Would the rebellious forces have been able to go from Sevilla to Badajoz and from Badajoz to the doors of Madrid, if we had not opposed for so long, and so bitterly, the organisation of the army which we needed to fight the enemy? Our militias, without firing practice, without military training, disordered, which held plenums and assemblies before going into battle, which discussed all orders, and often refused to comply with them, could not confront the formidable military apparatus which Germany and Italy provided to the Rebels...'"

Of course Spain wasn't ideal, but discipline within unions is and alliance with millitias and disciplined programs is pretty damn good, what with Rashid and the NABPP teaming up with the IWW (a non sectarian org) and the SRA being the shit

>The Red Army was far more centralized than Washington's forces and Red Army leaders explicitly opposed efforts to make militias the basis of the country's armed forces.

The power was centralized in the organization itself and there's no difference between that and industrial union style centralization


 No.14176

>>14075

>They do though. Guerrilla warfare is still hiding in bushes, but now with some land mines and that it.

Guerrilla warfare alone wasn't sufficient to beat back the Nazi advance, nor Franco's forces.

>what with Rashid and the NABPP teaming up with the IWW (a non sectarian org) and the SRA being the shit

These groups can be useful in the context of threats by fascist groups against groups on the left. Still not equivalent to defending a revolution from external invasions or civil war though.

Also the IWW has been an anarchist org since the 1920s. It can work with non-anarchist groups, but the leadership will do all it can to retain the IWW's anarchist nature.

>The power was centralized in the organization itself and there's no difference between that and industrial union style centralization

I don't see the relevance. The Red Army clearly wasn't an industrial union. Industrial unions are not a substitute for an army.


 No.14182

File: ee1c5625a1451cc⋯.jpg (61.71 KB, 540x357, 180:119, ebro2_1.jpg)

File: ad2454fac5e7025⋯.png (53.64 KB, 245x126, 35:18, sadurni-de-noya.png)

>>14176

>Also the IWW has been an anarchist org since the 1920s. It can work with non-anarchist groups, but the leadership will do all it can to retain the IWW's anarchist nature

It's not https://www.iww.org/history/myths/8

>I don't see the relevance. The Red Army clearly wasn't an industrial union. Industrial unions are not a substitute for an army.

I was speaking more to how Anarchists and Leninists both really rely on power structured in an org and how that would also translate into the military not being that different, since it's the same in org format (i.e people listening to the most competent people there are at the time)

>Guerrilla warfare alone wasn't sufficient to beat back the Nazi advance, nor Franco's forces.

I never said that and if forced into warfare militias would have the sense to listen to the person who's qualified.




File: 0b4da65c7062a7a⋯.jpg (6.94 KB, 141x187, 141:187, mao z.jpg)

 No.12613[Reply]

I want to start a new communist political party in my country because all our communist parties are shit.

I consider myself a Marxist-Leninist and a Maoist and so do my comrades who I'm setting it up with and we want to try to become a large party (unlikely but a goal nevertheless).

However, in my country (thanks to Cold War propaganda) Stalin and Mao are seen as equal to Hitler and so by branding our party as Marxist-Leninist or Maoist we might not be able to get much support from the people. So, my question is:

Should Western Communist Parties brand themselves as regular Marxists or Leninists and defend Stalin/Mao behind closed doors in order to gather ourselves more support from the people, or should we openly defend Stalin/Mao's legacy and try to change people's minds on them?

 No.12615

Marxism-Leninism is itself seen as little different from fascism by large swathes of the population. If you're worried about having controversial views, you shouldn't form a communist organization.

As Marx and Engels noted, "Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims." Hiding your views will only confuse people and make you appear deceitful.


 No.13816

what country comrade?


 No.13848

>>12613

Always started with a studying group of trusted people. Do not preach communism to ordinary people without knowing their viewpoint beforehand. Influence people around you with historical materialist analysis of current political events and class-based analysis, try to stay "neutral and objective", then invite people who have pro-worker oriented.

But also you shouldn't lie about your true views. Propaganda should be conducted with a slow and careful approach, but without compromising Marxist doctrine.


 No.14175

You should not conceal that you guys are communists, but to the ordinary people in Western Europe, whatever Stalin did or what the Cultural Revolution was is basically irrelevant one way or the other. Study the demands of the people in your country, and apply diamat to define a political line that links them to socialism. That's what mass line is, after all.

What country are you from?




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

 No.14061[Reply]

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

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

2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.14065

>>14064

To be fair, I found it to be a fairly straightforward document. Obviously there are bits where historical context is useful to have, but I don't recall any part of it where you have to have read Smith or Ricardo beforehand to comprehend what Marx is arguing. Marx doesn't go much into economics beyond pointing out inept phrasing and the aforementioned iron law of wages.

Now if you want to read Capital then yeah it absolutely helps to read some Smith and Ricardo.

Post last edited at

 No.14070

>>14062

Thank you this makes much more sense; I wasn't sure how the law connected to population since marxists.org didn't really explain what the law was


 No.14074

>being this big of a retard

READ MARX


 No.14082

>>14070

No problem.

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


 No.14112

>>14082

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




File: f35c88b44bfb9f8⋯.jpg (69.06 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, pepe snorts coke 02.jpg)

 No.12677[Reply]

They are superior to humans at doing production and service tasks. Even as distraction devices they excel at keeping humans hunched over a tiny screen all day. Humans don't even purchase shares in production when it is offered to them.

 No.13664

File: e035c853bbcaa29⋯.png (14.1 KB, 180x255, 12:17, c93e547ff991de0a5538d0c6d6….png)

No, mankind first, robots second.


 No.13665

>>13664

More like living things first, robots second.


 No.13906

Robots don't partake in class struggle, so they are not relevant.


 No.14080

File: 8f1321d0f2f2df4⋯.jpg (262.11 KB, 2000x1333, 2000:1333, xIakISg.jpg)

i'm only down one volume of capital and a few pamphlets in terms of reading marx or any marxists, but I have a thought about this: The commodity form, or maybe the value structure of capital, needs to be augmented in some way to embody human value, so that humanity can become aware of itself and its own interests. In materially realizing the human-value-form, the way we look at things will be a lot different, and we'll likely see humanity in places and patterns we haven't before. If we end up finding more human-value in the world than we see now, I imagine that the new humanity will bleed over into the artificial world. If we see "negative" human-value in the world, so humanity isn't seen anywhere in the world, yet it would be worthy to realize humanity in the world, I can imagine that the new humanity, a form unlike any other seen, would be artificial.


 No.14081

>>14080

I'm really reaching now, but in a very abstract way, all that matters is the value of humanity taken today. along some arbitrary scale of human-value, the amount of humanity seen today in the world is non-zero and positive. if there are no limits to the anthropological domain according to the society(ies) which mark it out in the world, I'd give that domain infinite positive value, so that's a 50:50 chance from all chances that the new humanity contains artificiality. if the anthropological domain is finite, then whatever slice present humanity takes up exclusively is infinitesmally less than 50%, but then all the artificial-exclusive possibilities only have that infinitesmal edge over the humanity-inclusive possibilities.




File: 3f83bcc0dbf24a7⋯.jpg (50.38 KB, 785x503, 785:503, Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-W061….jpg)

 No.13941[Reply]

Many people on the right talk of Socialist persecution of Christians and other religious groups, and while some punishment was understandable as the majority of the clergy supported counterrevolutionaries, was it really as bad as people say? Was a religious institution in any Marxist aligned country on decent terms with socialism?

 No.13942

It depends on the country. The most extreme was how Albania under Hoxha flat out abolished clergy and prohibited virtually all worship.

Up until the completion of collectivization the relationship between the church and Soviet state was very bad, since the former sought the restoration of Tsarism (which had given the Orthodox Church a privileged position.) But afterward, particularly during and after the Great Patriotic War, relations improved and the CPSU recognized that a new clergy had arisen willing to work in the interests of socialism.

There were modus vivendis sought between other socialist states and the churches in their countries. In addition, three socialist countries saw religious parties in alliance with the communists: the Czechoslovak People's Party and the Slovak Freedom Party, the GDR's Christian Democratic Union, and the Chondoist Chongu Party in the DPRK.

Post last edited at

 No.13959

>>13942

Do you think the Chondoist Chongu Party and Korean Social Democratic Party are serious contenders for power in the DPRK? It seems like they are completely dependent of the power of the Workers' Party.


 No.14058

>>13959

They aren't meant to be "contenders for power."

Multi-party socialist states (such as the DPRK) operate on the basis that the communist party is the leading force of the state and society. The other parties recognize this and work with the communists to help build and strengthen socialism.

So for example Gerald Götting (leader of the Christian Democratic Union in the GDR) said such things as, "We Christian Democrats support our state in word and deed, because here we can put into practice the principles of love of peace and love for one's neighbors, commanded of us on ethical grounds, to an extent that is inconceivable in a society divided into antagonistic classes." He added, "The educational and persuasive work of the CDU, as of all other forces in the National Front, has helped countless non-party Christians to recognize the humanistic character of the socialist system and to become engaged in society for the policy of our state." (quoted in East Germany: A New German Nation Under Socialism? 1984, pp. 323-324)

Manfred Gerlach, head of the Liberal Democratic Party in the GDR, likewise stated that, "The GDR is the joint product of all citizens, of all classes and strata allied with the working class. . . thanks to the leadership of our people by the Socialist Unity Party of Germany." And, "Naturally, our opponents would prefer, under socialism, parties bitterly struggling against each other in the name of 'pluralism,' rather than the steadily growing political-moral unity of the people. Only too happily would they exchange the leadership role of the party of the working class for a bourgeois-style oppositional wrangling. May these remain but empty wishes!" (p. 198, 201)

The WPK and other two parties don't compete against one-another. They work together (through the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland) to decide what candidates each one should nominate in a given area.

Post last edited at



File: e26191ab0fa5027⋯.jpg (16.62 KB, 194x300, 97:150, aoc-cover-ww-variant_orig.jpg)

 No.13995[Reply]

How do we make the Revolution happen?

 No.13999

Lenin wrote that revolutionary situations "are independent of the will, not only of individual groups and parties but even of individual classes." He defined a revolutionary situation as follows:

>(1) when it is impossible for the ruling classes to maintain their rule without any change; when there is a crisis, in one form or another, among the “upper classes”, a crisis in the policy of the ruling class, leading to a fissure through which the discontent and indignation of the oppressed classes burst forth. For a revolution to take place, it is usually insufficient for “the lower classes not to want” to live in the old way; it is also necessary that “the upper classes should be unable” to live in the old way; (2) when the suffering and want of the oppressed classes have grown more acute than usual; (3) when, as a consequence of the above causes, there is a considerable increase in the activity of the masses, who uncomplainingly allow themselves to be robbed in “peace time”, but, in turbulent times, are drawn both by all the circumstances of the crisis and by the “upper classes” themselves into independent historical action.

So clearly you can't "make the Revolution happen" by sheer willpower. What is important is that the objective factors creating a revolutionary situation (mentioned by Lenin above) combine with the subjective factor (i.e. the existence of a strong working-class vanguard able to lead the machinery of the proletariat, such as the trade unions, councils, armed detachments, or whatever else may form in the course of struggle) that makes the triumph of the working-class possible.


 No.14001

>>13995

Open up a factory, acquire capital, lower living conditions, but not health, lobby for access to guns, reduced millitary spending, donate copies of Marx to local libraries.

Essentially, fuck the worker enough that he wants it to happen, but leave him capable of making it happen.




Delete Post [ ]
[]
Previous [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
| Catalog | Nerve Center | Cancer
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / choroy / eros / fascist / jenny / tk / vfur / vichan ]