[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 8cup / britfeel / hkon9 / o / rzabczan / vg / vichan / zoo ]

/marx/ - Marxism

It makes you smart


Winner of the 42nd Attention-Hungry Games
/ara/ - A Place for Mothercons.
Comment *
Verification *
File *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)

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

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


Hello, I am the new leader of /marx/.

I will continue the status quo: this board is for those who identify as Marxist-Leninist in some form, whether they uphold or otherwise identify with the Stalin-era USSR, the post-Stalin era, China under Mao, Albania under Hoxha, Cuba, the DPRK or whatever. Non-MLs are allowed to ask questions and the like.

I have a forum with a political forum area for registered users (although the forum itself is for forum games users think up and run.) If you want to get in private contact with me via PM, or if you just want to use the political forum area for whatever, feel free: http://eregime.org/index.php?act=idx

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



If the option is available then I could do that.

File: d1ddb863f01838a⋯.jpg (22.84 KB, 315x300, 21:20, dengism.jpg)

File: 7d8dbc13a754a7c⋯.pdf (82.62 KB, FWCC.pdf)


As a Marxist, how would I best respond to this repudiation of Xi Jinping Thought?


I would argue:

1. China does not have socialism.

2. China stated their goal was to develop economically, and they have succeeded.

3. The material conditions for socialism are now appearing.

4. If they want to avoid a massive economic crash they'll need to transition to socialism.

5. It appears that the Communist Party leadership realizes this.

To expand on the above: China has created a massive credit bubble within their economy. This was to offset the impact of the financial crisis in 2008. But, aside from that, there had also been a speculation in property for years before. If they let capitalism run its course it will cause a crash. What's the alternative? Begin transitioning to socialism. There are indications they may be attempting to do this. Xi Jinping has been promoting Marxism, probably because the Chinese leadership realizes their predicament and needs to lay the groundwork for a solution.

File: cd561cf3424f9c4⋯.jpg (917.41 KB, 1417x1860, 1417:1860, LaborDefender-Debs-Dec1926.jpg)


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.

728 posts and 306 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
Post last edited at



Maybe a somewhat unusual question: From your experiences as a wikipedia contributor, how reliable or ideologically charged do you think Wikipedia articles generally are? I'd imagine unpopular views, even when properly sourced, are frequently deleted by other contributors because they don't agree. How much of a liberal circlejerk is it?


File: fb08ba0a7c08e1c⋯.jpg (975.19 KB, 4806x2402, 2403:1201, fb08ba0a7c08e1cde5c4932d90….jpg)

Greetings Comrade Ismail, Is pic related an accurate representation of the DPRK government?



It's entirely based on the article and on the specific contributors. It's also based on popular trends, e.g. I wrote Grover Furr's Wikipedia article and posted it without incident. A while later his name got thrown around on conservative sites due to some talk he held, and then a few anti-communists wanted to change the article to basically say "Grover Furr is a communist-holocaust-denying retard whose specialization in medieval literature makes him completely unworthy to write about anything outside that specific subject." But by the sheer ability of nobody else caring about Grover Furr, I was able to withstand said attacks with minimal outside help.

Unpopular views, like you say, are indeed deleted if they are seen as "fringe." This makes sense from a "ruling ideology" perspective (you don't see Britannica giving space for an alternative view that Marxism is actually valid), and such a perspective is pretty firmly ensured by the fact that the main criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia is "this is what all the popular sources are saying about [insert] subject."

So for instance an article on Gorby having citations to the works of bourgeois historians and journalists is fine, but "Socialism Betrayed" by Keeran and Kenny would be considered "biased" and "fringe" and therefore only appropriate to cite in specific circumstances.


I can't say about the DPRK specifically, but in general the most important policymaking institution in socialist countries was the party's Politburo.

The DPRK's National Defense Commission (since 2016 called the State Affairs Commission) is probably more important in day-to-day matters.

Post last edited at


what is the chinese form of workplace democracy



To my knowledge workplace democracy is carried out in the context of the All-China Federation of Trade Unions. As far as I know there are no specific institutions in the workplace (e.g. there's no equivalent to Soviet production conferences or Yugoslav workers' councils.)

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


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

482 posts and 189 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



Ok thanks, that clears things up.



That is a plausible explanation but to what extent is it a "Marxist analysis"?

For example, nowhere does it take into consideration the class composition of Russian society in the 30-50s, i.e. the vast number of peasants with only a relatively small amount of industrial workers, the number of the latter further decimated by the civil war. Nowhere does it mention the prevailing production relations in Russia pre-revolution. Again, lots of pre-industrial forms of production in rural areas with only a small amount of big industry in the cities. Both of these necessitated a dictatorial relation between the proletariat embodied in its class-party and the rest of the population. The small peasantry, though nominally one of the revolutionary classes, became essentially petit-bourgeois in its nature after the land reform and the production relations prevailing in agriculture a potential cradle of capitalism. Now whereas Stalin ruled over these new petit-bourgeois strata with an iron fist to safeguard the revolution, subsequent leaders seemed to make more and more concessions to this part of the population.



>Now whereas Stalin ruled over these new petit-bourgeois strata with an iron fist to safeguard the revolution, subsequent leaders seemed to make more and more concessions to this part of the population.

I don't see how that's true. Agriculture constantly lagged behind industrial development, and Soviet leaders (except Malenkov, the closest thing to Stalin's chosen successor) consistently placed heavy industry in first place priority. Not to mention that as a class the rural petty-bourgeoisie ceased to exist with collectivization, and if anything were becoming more like workers after 1953 (e.g. the Soviet state gave collective farmers a minimum wage in the 60s, and in the 70s started inducting them into trade unions.)

But yes, your bit about concentrating power in the 1920s-30s based on a small working-class surrounded by vacillating, petty-bourgeois elements is a sound one.



>I don't see how that's true.

>as a class the rural petty-bourgeoisie ceased to exist with collectivization, and if anything were becoming more like workers after 1953

Farmers were given the right to keep a plot of land as "personal" property which was de facto used for commodity production for their own profit.



That was a practice begun under Stalin as part of enticing peasants to join the collectives and encouraging productivity.

More importantly, "in the Soviet Union it is illegal to combine private plots, to buy and sell the land, or to employ hired labor on the plots. . . . in the last 20 years the percentage of total family income coming from the plots and other subsidiary industry has declined from 42% in 1958 to 30.9% in 1969." (Jonathan Aurthur, Socialism in the Soviet Union, 1977, pp. 57-58.)

I can't think of any examples where the state felt compelled to make concessions to the peasantry beyond the need to improve agricultural productivity (hence Malenkov raising prices the state was willing to pay for collective farm produce and Khrushchev abolishing the MTS.)

Post last edited at

File: 798626dcc7f0145⋯.jpg (159.49 KB, 450x750, 3:5, tumblr_opg37ujclC1vtj6m3o1….jpg)


Hi, /marx/! I'm new to /marx/ (and 8chan in general) and have been a Marxist for about three years, a Leninist for about seven months. I have some questions for all on a few questions that, uh, due to their nature, I thought best to ask somewhere extremely anonymous, such as 8chan's /marx/ board.

1. What is a materialist stance rejecting or supporting """victimless""" taboo acts such as incest, nondirected slurs, or drawn child pornography? Do you believe all critique of them is based around an idealist, individualist framework, or are there other considerations?

2. What is your conception of a Marxist approach to such identity-centered issues such as ethnic and sexual oppression, and to concepts of oppression and privilege in general? What is the historical-materialist approach to, say, liberal notions of white guilt?

3. What is the proper thing to do, as a first-world socialist, in general? No matter how much theory I read, I always have a lack of knowledge for what to do, and whether I'm doing the "right thing", and whether it's effective.

4. What do you think of Dengist reforms, of Juche's deviations from Marxism-Leninism, etc.? At what point is something "no longer socialist" -- Libya, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Rojava, Chiapas, Norway, etc.? Is the question of "is a nation socialist" even the right question to ask, when considering the support or lack thereof of a nation while under late capitalism / global capitalism / neo-colonialism / imperialism? Is this all too binary, too black-and-white, almost inverse McCarthyist?

5. What is your opinion of sociocultural applications of Marxism, such as Gramsci, Adorno, Habermas, Žižek, Coffin, etc. (or even of non-Marxists in some semblance of the same orbit, such as Derrida, Foucault, and Butler)? It seems to me that Marxism encompasses almost the entirety of the social sciences, but there are some debates over whether proponents of critical theory etc. were just "armchair socialists", esp. since there appears to be a heavy amount of anti-Bolshevik rhetoric among them.

6. Why do you think Stalin and Mao received so much of thPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

4 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



>What makes you say this?

It was illegal to organize a communist party in Libya; known communists were arrested or assassinated. His own conception of socialism was based on his understanding of Islam and nomadic culture rather than historical materialism, a doctrine he regarded as atheistic.

>but I don't see why certain elements of postmodern ideology cannot be merged with Marxist theory.

Such as?

>"Brezhnev represented a decisive leftward shift in terms of foreign policy from the Khrushchev years, which saw the USSR come to the aid of Vietnam, their support of the MPLA, Ethiopia, their support in the Six-Day War, and so on." — Ellen Robinson

That much is true, but that still doesn't make Brezhnev a very good leader. Domestically the economy's growth rate declined while reforms were stalled, corruption increased as he looked the other way, and he held onto the office of General Secretary to the very end (to the embarrassment of Soviet citizens who saw him struggle to read short speeches and require his associates to help him walk from one part of a room to another.)

Post last edited at



>Such as?

Deconstruction theory, critical race theory, Indigenous knowledge systems, postcolonial theory, Lacanian psychoanalysis, queer theory — or even just elements of these.

Also, what's your position regarding those criticizing the PRC and CPC as "not socialist" for wealth inequality, markets, billionaires, and poor worke conditions? I don't disagree with the tenets and applications of socialism with Chinese characteristics, but these critics raise a compelling argument.



>Also, what's your position regarding those criticizing the PRC and CPC as "not socialist" for wealth inequality, markets, billionaires, and poor worke conditions?

Marx noted that inequality will persist under socialism, as will the law of value (and hence some sort of market.)

The CPC argues that its specific degree of inequality (culminating in actual capitalists existing) is necessitated by the need to develop the productive forces of the country, without which socialism can hardly develop.

Likewise it is argued that while working conditions in special economic zones and other parts of the country are often poor by Western standards, for those actually working in them they represent a step up, and that common prosperity will come as a result of the opening up of the economy undertaken since the 80s.

To me the idea that a country can't be socialist if it has problems with inequality is like saying the US wouldn't be capitalist anymore if you placed hard caps on income differentials. Socialism, like capitalism, is a mode of production. It can look quite different from country to country, but there are fundamental similarities.



>To me the idea that a country can't be socialist if it has problems with inequality is like saying the US wouldn't be capitalist anymore if you placed hard caps on income differentials. Socialism, like capitalism, is a mode of production. It can look quite different from country to country, but there are fundamental similarities.

<socialist capitalists

<socialist exploitation through wage labour

<socialist private business

<socialist economic imperialism

<socialist commodity, capital and labour markets

<socialist millionaires and billionaires in the party, government and legislature

<socialist income inequality worse than the US as well as pretty much every other country in Asia

<special economic zones (socialist capitalism)

You're right, one would have to be crazy to believe China is capitalist.



you forgot their socialist property bubble.

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


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.

60 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: e6d8f99263f03fb⋯.png (11.16 KB, 578x445, 578:445, capital2_processes.png)


Are you thinking of a specific passage?

In Marx's day capitalism's defining feature was the formation and expansion of industrial-capital. So not only does production lead to surplus and profit but production also tends toward an increase in productive capacity. In previous epochs production increased extensively, but under capitalism it increased intensively as the productivity of labor rises. (Side note: economist Michael Hudson believes that today this process has reversed itself and industrial-capital is no longer dominant, but rather subordinate to money-capital and finance.)

A few notes for chapter 1 & 2:


"The specific manner in which this union [of labourers and means of production] is accomplished distinguishes the different economic epochs of the structure of society from one another."


"Industrial capital is the only mode of existence of capital in which not only the appropriation of surplus-value, or surplus-product, but simultaneously its creation is a function of capital. Therefore with it the capitalist character of production is a necessity. Its existence implies the class antagonism between capitalists and wage-labourers. To the extent that it seizes control of social production, the technique and social organisation of the labour-process are revolutionised and with them the economico-historical type of society. The other kinds of capital, which appeared before industrial capital amid conditions of social production that have receded into the past or are now succumbing, are not only subordinated to it and the mechanism of their functions altered in conformity with it, but move solely with it as their basis, hence live and die, stand and fall with this basis. Money-capital and commodity-capital, so far as they function as vehicles of particular branches of business, side by side with industrial capital, are nothing but modes of existence of the different functional forms now assumed, now discarded by industrial capital in the sphere of circulation - modes which, due to social division of labour, have attained independence exiPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 6738f6a13963989⋯.jpg (86.48 KB, 640x471, 640:471, 1506454867516.jpg)

Can someone help me make sense of this part?

>Whenever the law limits the labour of children to 6 hours in industries not before interfered with, the complaints of the manufacturers are always renewed. They allege that numbers of the parents withdraw their children from the industry brought under the Act, in order to sell them where “freedom of labour” still rules, i.e., where children under 13 years are compelled to work like grown-up people, and therefore can be got rid of at a higher price. But since capital is by nature a leveller, since it exacts in every sphere of production equality in the conditions of the exploitation of labour, the limitation by law of children’s labour, in one branch of industry, becomes the cause of its limitation in others.


How exactly does restriction of child labour in one branch of industry lead to restriction in another?



It's because we assume that all industries share the same market for labor. Better pay or working conditions in Industry A will also put pressure on Industry B as they attempt to compete for workers. This of course assumes a static working population.

He explains some of this earlier in the chapter:

In some branches of the woollen manufacture in England the employment of children has during recent years been considerably diminished, and in some cases has been entirely abolished. Why? Because the Factory Acts made two sets of children necessary, one working six hours, the other four, or each working five hours. But the parents refused to sell the “half-timers” cheaper than the “full-timers.” Hence the substitution of machinery for the “half-timers.” [34] Before the labour of women and of children under 10 years of age was forbidden in mines, capitalists considered the employment of naked women and girls, often in company with men, so far sanctioned by their moral code, and especially by their ledgers, that it was only after the passing of the Act that they had recourse to machinery.

Note that above machinery is introduced to offset the higher cost of labor. It's the opposite of what capitalists are doing in developed countries today. They want to compete against cheap global labor by slashing pay and benefits rather than by introducing new technology.



>Better pay or working conditions in Industry A will also put pressure on Industry B as they attempt to compete for workers.

But this assumes that workers have room for negotiation. If labour power were a rare commodity, sure, but the fact is that capitalism keeps a reserve army of labour and there's almost always more workers than jobs unless under conditions of extreme economic growth.



Which is why I specified that we're assuming a static working population and a shared labor market between Industry A and Industry B. By inducing an artificial labor shortage in one industry you create the incentive for them to introduce more efficient methods of production, allowing them to compete against hitherto unregulated industries.

This is why Marx's quote makes clear that the introduction of machinery to mines came after a labor shortage was introduced via the Factory Acts.

>capitalism keeps a reserve army of labour and there's almost always more workers than jobs

Yes, but we're discussing the case of regulation where access to labor-power is being artificially restricted, i.e. fewer working hours or complete removal of women & children from some industry. The labor market is not infinite. In Marx's day most countries would under no circumstance have allowed their industries to relocate overseas nor would their labor organizations have allowed the yearly immigration of hundreds of thousands or millions of foreign workers. It was probably unthinkable at the time. The use of a few thousand Chinese laborers in the American West led to rioting and violence on part of labor organizations due to the perceived threat.

Today the situation reverses itself. There is no point in regulating labor or raising wages in a country when those same companies can simply relocate to India or China. In Marx's day this would have been prevented via tariffs. Today's reality of mass migration coupled with unrestrained global capital is what's responsible for the impossibility of labor to negotiate.

File: 7629a9e8ecb8ac4⋯.jpg (64.4 KB, 800x800, 1:1, hoxha is anfem.jpg)


Ever since I got into politics, political theory and Marxism more seriously, I've noticed that there's often a tension between thinking in terms of principles and thinking in terms of what is strategically beneficial.

For example, the question of gun control. I live in a country with pretty strict gun laws, and we simply don't have anything close to the kind of gun violence there is in the US. In my mind there is no doubt that ordinary people, children going to school, etc. in the US would be safer if there were stricter gun regulations, so my instinct is to support that kind of thing, but most radical leftists probably wouldn't agree with me because they think guns are strategically necessary for carrying out revolution. To me, supporting policies that result in unnecessary deaths of ordinary people, because of some revolution that doesn't seem to be happening any time soon, seems like a really dangerous form of LARPing.

When I was more of a social democrat kinda guy, things like this were really easy. I just supported any movement or reform that was pushing society in the direction of my principles (welfare state, less income inequality, racial and gender equality, freedom of speech, secularism, etc.). But now if you take revolution seriously, if you want to completely replace the current political and economic system, then there are all sorts of strategical considerations you have to make that might force you to compromise your principles, or take positions you wouldn't take previously.

Does anyone know what I'm talking about? Am I thinking about it all wrong? What position should Marxists take on questions like this?

(Obviously there are always strategic considerations even in completely reformist politics, but I feel like it's easier to be consistent if you view the current system as legitimate and working within it is all you do.)

1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


Restrict guns greatly but don't ban them. Solution there easy peasy.

If they advocate against stricter gun laws but don't stockpile guns then they're useless.

>What position should Marxists take on questions like this?

Pragmatism. Compromise principles where necessary but don't go so far as to loose the principles. It's the principles that drive your pragmatism after all.

It's very situational and subjective, you decide. Don't let internet people tell you what to do tbh.


While I wouldn't support a gun ban in the US, it is a double-edged sword. In the rest of the world, police firing their weapons on dissidents is cause of outrage because no one but organized criminals owns guns. In the US on the other hand, the police can even shoot unarmed people in cold blood simply because the possibility of them having a gun exists. I can see this mentality easily being used to justify heavy lethal force being used to quell any future revolutionary movement or attempt. And the sad part is the reactionary elements of the proletariat would applaud it too


> There's often a tension between thinking in terms of principles and thinking in terms of what is strategically beneficial. [...] But now if you take revolution seriously, if you want to completely replace the current political and economic system, then there are all sorts of strategical considerations you have to make that might force you to compromise your principles, or take positions you wouldn't take previously.

Stalin makes a related point in "The Foundations of Leninism", Chapter VII. Strategy and Tactics --

"6) Reformism and revolutionism. What is the difference between revolutionary tactics and reformist tactics?

"Some think that Leninism is opposed to reforms, opposed to compromises and to agreements in general. This is absolutely wrong. Bolsheviks know as well as anybody else that in a certain sense 'every little helps,' that under certain conditions reforms in general, and compromises and agreements in particular, are necessary and useful.

" 'To carry on a war for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie,' says Lenin, 'a war which is a hundred times more difficult, protracted, and complicated than the most stubborn of ordinary wars between states, and to refuse beforehand to manoeuvre, to utilise the conflict of interests (even though temporary) among one's enemies, to reject agreements and compromises with possible (even though temporary, unstable, vacillating and conditional) allies-is not this ridiculous in the extreme? Is it not as though, when making a difficult ascent of an unexplored and hitherto inaccessible mountain, we were to refuse beforehand ever to move in zigzags, ever to retrace our steps, ever to abandon the course once selected and to try others?' (see Vol. XXV, p. 210).

"Obviously, therefore, it is not a matter of reforms or of compromises and agreements, but of the use people make of reforms and agreements.

"To a reformist, reforms are everything, while revolutionary work is something incidental, something just to talk about, mere eyewash. That is why, with reformist tactics under the conditions of bourgeois rule, reforms arPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


> I think it's always critical to evaluate both the ideological and material considerations [...]

I just realized I didn't even give a stance on the issue. So I do have critical support for gun control movements and (VERY CRITICAL) support for some of the #MarchForOurLives jazz and etc.

If society doesn't become safer and the toxic white masculinity that is involved in shootings & domestic violence doesn't reduce, it does at least create a grassroots base (however spontaneous) that can be funneled into non-spontaneous efforts. See: People being introduced to the Left via Occupy Wall Street or Bernie Sanders.

Tl;dr: I support safety measures on firearms for the period of time that we live under the dictatorship of capital. At the same time, I support armed worker resistance. PSL's Liberation News does a great job explaining why this isn't contradictory:




>toxic white masculinity

Actually a little offended tbh mainly because its well-known that blacks and latinos commit a majority of the homicides in the US. Where's the talk about toxic black masculinity? Well, at least the Brown Berets were honest enough to admit that Latin machismo was a problem.

But still, is this the state of the American socialist Left? It's well-known that blacks and latinos commit probably the majority of US murders but I do oppose scapegoating them because of this. No one assigns collective guilt to blacks and Hispanic men for this, nor should they.

But as soon as they can find ONE area where whites are over-represented in the realm of homicide they think its okay to bash us? Its hard to count the amount of interesting mass shooter cases that got dropped from media attention because it was committed by a woman or someone who wasn't white enough to merit media attention.

It's also well-known that Jews are over represented in certain crimes (and among the bourgeoisie itself) and that American Jewish support for Zionism is disproportionate in comparison to the general population. I still oppose talking about Jews as a group (including Jewish workers) as problem, which is exactly what Nazis do.

File: 162dce9840bad84⋯.png (12.63 KB, 560x407, 560:407, 1499185347389.png)


>We're not coming for your toothbrush, silly fash. We're coming for the private property being kept away from the people.

Here's a list of things that are considered private property in the normal world:

>My house

>My car

>My money

>My personal possessions

>My overall material wealth

>My automated manufacturing plant that i built from the ground up

>My investments

And you want to take these things away from me for what again? I'm really looking for an intellectual discussion.

Protip: Telling me to read marxist books is the equivalent of /pol/ telling you to read siege. So spill your thoughts and convictions.

8 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



>So personal property is your "lifestyle choices", and private property is the business/other you own that can sustain that lifestyle?

No. Private property is that which exists solely in the production of commodities. When a capitalist goes to sell a cell phone on the market, he first invests money into research and development, office buildings for workers, wages, transportation, crystals mined from a sub-Saharan African state, etc. etc.

All that is a cost of the production of a commodity that is not the direct labor itself (or, more accurately, the wages, i.e., the cost of labour-power per unit time) ... is private property.

To put it in less abstract terms: We don't want to radically alter your pay. We want to have General Motors factories and cubicle farms owned and managed by the very workers themselves. We want these workers to replace the capitalists in political power in the state apparatus. We want an economy planned according to need, according to the long-term prosperity of the entire nation, rather than the short-term individual interests. And we want the elimination of exploitation, of capitalists relying on others' labor like leeches.


File: 515c0fde8fdfe32⋯.png (17.59 KB, 696x255, 232:85, captcha.png)

have you ever been institutionalized? thats about the level of property we're talking about



a HOUSE AND A CAR IS PERSONAL PROPERTY????? are you fucking high?



Of course there's some degree of dispute here, especially in differences of material conditions affecting this, etc., but I'll use what Ismail said in


as example:

>Using the USSR as an example, housing built by individuals explicitly fell under personal property, as did cars and toothbrushes.



>have you ever been institutionalized? thats about the level of property we're talking about

I've actually been in an acute-care inpatent facility for treatment of major depression, and they literally do take your toothpaste, along with everything else, including privacy, due to the number of ways an extremely suicidal, homocidal, aggressive, anorexic, etc. etc. person can try to ... well, you know.

File: b54dbe223615094⋯.jpg (490.5 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, FathersOfCommunism1920x108….jpg)


What are your guys' thought on Nazbol? Personally, I think it's cringy as fuck. Seems like they're mostly just edgy children who don't actually know what communism is, but relish in the controversy of the hammer+sickle and Nazi flag. Plus, are their beliefs not counter-revolutionary and authoritarian to an extreme?

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



They aren't pro-Putin anymore, they were, which I consider a betrayal of any communist ideals they had (supporting an imperialist power, lol), on the peak of Russian invasion in Ukraine, some have gone volunteers for "interbrigades" in Donbass, some of them even have gone fully loyalist after Crimea annexation, but they quickly got disillusioned as it became clear that invasion has failed, Limonov blamed Putin's regime for not defending Russian interests and such stuff. Sorry for my English, still not used to it.



Ceauscescu was just about independence from Moscow, that's all 'national' communism amounts to really


NazBol is a legit movement in Russia and despite his numerous flaws I think Dugin is onto something, you ought to read the 4th Political Theory. Limonov though is just embarrassing.


There are some like that but NazBol has its origins in Germany with Ernst Niekisch



Has anybody read “The Worker” or anything else by Ernst Junger? What did you guys thinks of it?



No, but I've actually read Dugin, no joke. He's interesting to read, if you like a weird mixture between Spengler and Heigedder with a bunch of Third Worldism. I don't really think anything follows from his theories though, except "support Russia in its anti-imperialist struggle". I can draw nothing else from it.


National Bolshevism has some history, but ultimately it's just a reactionary meme taking advantage of Soviet aesthetics with no real point other than to put a hammer and sickle over chauvinist and social-chauvinist clickbait.


>Aren't they basically just the Nicolae Ceaușescu / Kim Jong-un flavor of Marxism-Leninism?

I don't know enough about Ceaușescu to comment, but the DPRK is a lot closer to the PRC and USSR in its elimination of private motive and common ownership of property etc. etc. than to bourgeois independence movements or whatever. Juche and Songun are necessary strategy when there's a 3,500 acre US military base 20 minutes from the DMZ, over in the ROK.

File: c3431207da60574⋯.jpg (64.04 KB, 1024x683, 1024:683, AABBAAC.jpg)


Any recommendations for studies, literature etc that are helpful for dismissing both anti-communist propaganda and fascist talking points?

Things that I could refer people to instead of having to digest and regurgitate the information so they can understand it.

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



Why are /pol/yps so afraid of reading books? Scared the (((author))) might challenge your views and change your mind? Don't worry, anon, I was retarded as you once too. It's not incurable


> Things that I could refer people to instead of having to digest and regurgitate the information so they can understand it.

For a short easily-digestible read 'Marxism in the Millenium' is good at nix'ing most anti-communist propaganda. It"s by Cliff so it's also sufficiently anti-stalin to be accepted by most center-left and left-leaning people (I don't know why people are bothering to rehabilitate Stalin's image when a lot of the shit that Beria did was out of line. Personally I'd have had Beria executed and that would have been the end of the executions. Exile only).



Clean your mouth.


Anything by Grover Furr, generally



Both Stalin and Khrushchev distrusted and hated Stalin, and it's considered a large possibility that Beria could be responsible for Stalin's death. He was good at his job while the fucking Nazis were invading.

File: 17f7625657e4e0d⋯.gif (3.73 KB, 453x302, 3:2, ao-lgflag.gif)


I was just reading this article from Jacobin: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/06/american-soldiers-rhodesia-angola-conservative-movement

I realized that this series of conflicts is key to understanding the current mode of capitalism (War Capitalism, Disaster Capitalism, Neo-Colonialism, Late Capitalism, or whatever you want to call it). I don't even know where to begin as this conflict is one of those places in history westerners rarely visit.

I'm looking for an introduction to African Marxism and the wars the United States, Europe, and their enemies in order to control the fate of the continent.


This should be of some use: https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/194824-Soviet-and-other-works-on-Africa-(PDFs)

A good read on Angola and Mozambique specifically: http://b-ok.xyz/book/1085701/3365f5


File: c3a562b781eb062⋯.png (76.03 KB, 500x302, 250:151, black-people-made-by-nazbo….png)

Africans or niggers as I like to call them are monkeyoid subhumans, the red flag belongs to the white man




>the red flag belongs to the white man

Why? The existing socialist countries are (I'd argue, at any rate) China, Cuba, DPRK, Vietnam and Laos.

Obviously this doesn't prove "white men" are incapable of building socialism, but I see no evidence that only Europeans are uniquely able to possess "the red flag."


File: 6cbcdcbb7415257⋯.jpg (9.76 KB, 213x341, 213:341, 02b3e6bbd97787f5ebdfc6b01b….jpg)


Anglos or crackas as I like to call them are sun burnt greedy subhuman parasites. The red flag belongs to those whomst all humanity have evolved from.

Au contraire



>the red flag belongs to the red man


File: 884e27895a7ff2c⋯.jpg (61.55 KB, 760x380, 2:1, mugabe.jpg)


Now that the dust has settled can we finally admit that this went tits up? What actually went wrong here and how we can we stop it next time.

>hurr durr muh akshually exizting soshulizm supported Mugabe

Ok. You can take that line but by the same token China supported the coup that removed him from power. And now Zimbabwe is applying to join the British commonwealth; so much for the anti-colonial struggle.

2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



If you're a Black person, Zimbabwe during the 80s and 90s was a better place to live in (and even with economic problems in the 2000s and 2010s Blacks still have far more freedoms than they did under Rhodesia.)

If you're a white farmer, your standard of living didn't change much until the land reforms. Most other white people in Zimbabwe were similarly well-off.

You don't see any Black folks in Zimbabwe calling for a return to Ian Smith's regime. Doesn't matter if they're with ZANU-PF or the opposition parties, it's agreed by everyone that Rhodesia was not a great place for Blacks to live in.


File: 12e9c75f1d0883c⋯.jpg (13.49 KB, 220x276, 55:69, France-Albert_René.jpg)

>...since [land reforms] they did largely succeed in giving land to the landless

Was there much point to this in all honestly? In revolutionary Russia, it made sense, since they were distributing from one class to another and feudalism still existed. But in Zimbabwe what they did is move land from the hands of a white bourgeoisie to the hands of what would become a black bourgeoisie. Maybe some peasants did decently out of it but peasant production is doomed in the long-run and I sorta doubt that the average peasant benefited much when the hyper-inflation kicked in

Big farms and large holdings are superior to small farms. The whites had that but if you want to build socialism in Zimbabwe then it makes more sense just to take the white farms into the public domain or into state-ownership then to redistribute them

>Commonwealth membership did not change Ghana under Nkrumah or Tanzania under Nyerere

Don't you think that there's a difference between having commonwealth membership already and applying for it? One of the first things that Rene "the Boss" Albert did when he came to power in the Seychelles was cancel their commonwealth membership. Let's be a little frank, South Africa left the commonwealth because the Boers had bad memories of British domination and arguable genocide against their people in the Boer Wars. I don't think being in the commonwealth is compatible with socialism, nat lib maybe, but not socialism.



It may have been a better idea from a socialist perspective to transfer such land into state ownership, but ZANU-PF supporters in the countryside had been demanding land reform for the prior ten years or so, to the extent that it looked as if Mugabe might lose elections.

>Don't you think that there's a difference between having commonwealth membership already and applying for it?

Zimbabwe only left because it was pretty much forced out, as I said.

South Africa left the Commonwealth in 1961 for two reasons: the first was "cultural" (the National Party based its legitimacy on breaking with anything that smacked of British colonial rule), but the second was the tepid criticisms the British government was making about Apartheid.

Even though South Africa left the Commonwealth, this didn't alter the fact that British imperialism worked with American imperialism to sustain the Apartheid regime. South Africa exiting the Commonwealth simply prevented criticism from India and other third-world Commonwealth countries that would have had Apartheid denounced at Commonwealth meetings, which would have forced South Africa to defend its policy at said meetings, etc. with the only result being embarrassment for the regime.


File: 08f450506a8ffc6⋯.jpg (15.32 KB, 255x191, 255:191, fucktherussians.jpg)


>to the extent that it looked as if Mugabe might lose elections.

To my knowledge, the land reforms prior to 2003 actually worked quite well and were fair in the sense that they didn't explicitly marginalize the white population. But afterwards, this did happen, and it has had negative impact on how leftism is viewed. The accusations against Mugabe--that he was an anti-white racist seems legitimate to me. Saying this should be interpreted as an apology for the Rhodesian regime. He was also fabulously corrupt and that had not a little to do with his downfall.

>Zimbabwe only left because it was pretty much forced out, as I said.

That's fine and all, but I think you're dodging my real point, which is that once you've been thrown out, why would you want to get back into an imperialist union?



>The accusations against Mugabe--that he was an anti-white racist seems legitimate to me.

I think what happened is that promising land to landless Blacks was pretty much the only thing he could do to win support beyond pointing out that the imperialist countries supported the MDC.

Case in point, in June last year he attended a rally of thousands of ZANU-PF supporters and said: "We have discovered that in Mashonaland East province alone where Ray Kaukonde was the resident minister, there are 73 white commercial farmers who are still occupying some farms when our people do not have land."

There wasn't much else he could campaign on, so focusing on what few white-owned farms remained was the best bet.

And yes, corruption was a serious issue. As I said, his removal wasn't a tragedy. If you're holding onto power till the day you die, even if you're in your 90s, that really isn't justifiable since it implies that everyone around you totally sucks.

>which is that once you've been thrown out, why would you want to get back into an imperialist union?

Zimbabwe wants to rejoin the Commonwealth in order to promote foreign investment and help end the sense of international isolation that has characterized it since the start of the century.

As I said, there's no evidence that membership in the Commonwealth impedes a professed commitment to socialism. Ghana under Nkrumah, Tanzania under Nyerere, Zambia under Kaunda, Bangladesh under Mujib and Grenada under Maurice Bishop were all Commonwealth members.

I can't think of any advantages these states would have had by leaving the Commonwealth, or that their policies (whether good or bad) could be credited to their membership in it.

Post last edited at

File: 24dd4a8adbf45ec⋯.jpg (52.69 KB, 858x536, 429:268, Ceausescu_2642450k.jpg)


How could communism be promoted in a country such as Romania, which arguably suffered the most under the opportunism of Ceaușescu?

I ask since just recalling the good measures under him (such as free housing and healthcare, the right to a job etc.) is countered by truthful claims which mention his excesses. The palace of parliament and the cult of personality come to mind.

On top of it all, a vast majority of the (mostly older) people who speak good of him are doing it in a national-chauvinistic way.

Is there anything I could read more about the RSR? I'm going to post some nice photos from that period.

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



Thanks for the links.

Do you consider the DPRK something akin to the RSR? People like to draw parallels because of the cult of personality, Ceaușescu's visit to his country, the "dictatorship", the large and empty roads etc.

I don't see it personally. Mostly because the DPRK does not show the same opportunism and is still commited to building socialism.



I don't think Ceaușescu saw himself as a crypto-capitalist, so "committed to building socialism" still applies.

Also remember that the DPRK took similar views as China and Romania on a number of subjects, e.g. supporting Pol Pot.

But yeah the DPRK and Romania aren't entirely comparable. The Kim cult, for one thing, is far more effective; Ceaușescu's cult seems to have been taken seriously by nobody inside Romania.


I'm also clueless how you'd go about making people enthusiastic for socialism again in countries like Romania and Cambodia. Maybe if capitalism makes life hard enough for a large part of the population that will lead to people rethinking stuff, but aside from that idk if a propaganda campaign could work.

Thanks for the nice pics, saved some of them.


>Was a commited Marxist-Leninist

I think the fact he demolished the city center of Bucharest for his megalomaniac palace is enough to prove this statement untrue


File: ae04f81a2636784⋯.jpg (76.4 KB, 850x400, 17:8, 12986721524256689.jpg)

What did he mean by this?



The quote comes from Ion Pacepa, a former Securitate official and Ceaușescu advisor who defected to the West His memoir ("Red Horizons") contains unverifiable claims.

Among those is that quote which Pacepa supposedly heard in the context of a meeting between Ceaușescu and Arafat:

>[Ceaușescu said] "How about pretending to break with terrorism? The West would love it."

>"Just pretending, like with your independence?"

>"Exactly. But pretending over and over. Political influence, like dialectical materialism, is built on the same basic tenet that quantitative accumulation generates qualitative transformation."

>"I'm not the expert on Marxism that you are, Brother Ceausescu."

>[cue cocaine quote]

>[Arafat replies:] "A snort of a pacifist Arafat day after day . . . ?"

>"Exactly, Brother Yasser. The West may even become addicted to you and your PLO."

Assuming for a moment that it's real, it's a joke Ceaușescu told Arafat.

For good measure, Pacepa also claimed Arafat had gay sex with other PLO members. He seems like the type of defector who made a living (and still does) off of speaking about his "expertise" and "revelations" as to the nefariousness of the East as against the innate goodness of the West.

Similar to how Yuri Bezmenov told conservatives that the Soviet Union's grand strategy to defeat American imperialism was to utilize "useful idiots" like Jane Fonda and Ted Kennedy to "demoralize" America from within.

Post last edited at

File: f5dd14e59201c3a⋯.png (330.02 KB, 400x400, 1:1, marx.png)


Marx was redpilled on the non-white question. Are you?

5 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 63c105b7edfc065⋯.jpg (328.36 KB, 727x1024, 727:1024, Calles.jpg)

File: 6f31f22481c552b⋯.jpg (41.89 KB, 768x409, 768:409, Costilla.jpg)



They didn't notice that the war's main purpose was to spread slavery, which had reactionary consequences for the US.

Would slavery have fallen if the issue of conquered Mexican land hadn't split the American ruling class? I think that's a serious question. Maybe it bought slavery a few extra decades but that's really hard to say.

You know Mexico had tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of (Indian) slaves at the same time right? I give the Mexican government credit for abolishing chattel black slavery but they did not abolish the main form of slavery in Mexico which persisted up until the Mexican Revolution. Mexican citizens were keeping Indian slaves in Southwestern territory both for use by the Catholic Church and as personal property when the war occurred.

Again, I'm not saying that you're totally wrong here but the US-Mexican War was a war between two settler-colonial societies that both kept slaves. It wasn't even as simple as "imperialist country vs. developing nation" because at the time they were both post-colonial developing nations.



>Would slavery have fallen if the issue of conquered Mexican land hadn't split the American ruling class? I think that's a serious question. Maybe it bought slavery a few extra decades but that's really hard to say.

Slavery was already a political issue before the war. It is indeed hard to say, but it is probable that had the war not happened the free states would have had a bigger advantage than the slave states in the event a civil war broke out.

And yeah I'm aware Mexico also had slaves and treated its indigenous population like utter ass, and the US obviously couldn't have been an imperialist country in the 1840s, but I don't think it would have been wrong to have opposed the Mexican-American War back then, as many American laborers did.

As a note, it's funny reading the Whig press at the time, e.g. "If there is in the United States a heart worthy of American liberty, its impulse is to join the Mexicans and hurl down the base, slavish, mercenary invaders. . . Would that the hordes of Scott and Taylor were every man of them swept into the next world."

A few years later the Whigs nominated that same Taylor as their Presidential candidate. Such is bourgeois politics.

Edit: Also I asked someone I know who is into Mexican history to chime in.

Post last edited at


The problem with the argument that the US, by invading Mexican territory advanced economic development and thus moved it further along the path to capitalism and greater social change, is that it assumes that were no such reformist or revolutionary currents within Mexico itself. Mexican liberals,generally espousing federalism, the abolition of fueros (corporate rights), and anti clericalism -- some of the most significant remnants of the colonial economic and political systems -- were a powerful force in the nations politics, and led many coups and revolutions across the 1830s and 40s. While it is true that the 1854 Ayutla revolution that ushered in the reform period was likely aided by the general destruction wrought by the US invasion, it is not as if it was brought on solely by the war. Its leaders, such as Juan Alvarez, had been active in national and local politics for decades. Mexico had its own revolutionary currents, and it was these currents that would ultimately triumph over conservative reaction in the war of the reform and the French Intervention, paving the way for the economic development of the Porfiriato. The key factor, however, is that when the US attacked Mexico in 1846, it's not as if it was a reactionary state with no significant internal opposition.

Further, Mexico's comparative underdevelopment wasn't necessarily a result of a lack of political view. Indeed, both liberal and conservative Mexicans usually saw a need for economic While progress, but there were significant roadblocks to achieve this. Mexico's war of independence lasted a decade, and devastated the nations infrastructure and population, leaving the independent nation in poor economic shape from the get go, making development difficult. Furthermore, the geographic advantages that made industrialization easier in the United States and Europe were absent from Mexico. Mexico has extremely mountainous terrain and lacks an abundance of navigable rivers, making transport of goods extremely difficult and costly. Geography and historical circumstances played a significant role in making Mexico a rather poor nation, unable to develop it's territories completely. The US took advantage of Mexico's poverty to take its territory. While it may have developed the territory it took, the US only hurt Mexico proper by bringing yet another round of death and destruction to the country.

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


File: 5079e8762002853⋯.png (131.71 KB, 1136x824, 142:103, Indianslaves.png)

File: c45049500784a6d⋯.png (186.78 KB, 578x806, 289:403, IndianslavesI.png)

File: d4598ffc1cf4a1f⋯.png (179.1 KB, 582x747, 194:249, IndianslavesII.png)


>On the subject of indigenous slavery, I am not exactly certain what you are referring too.

Pics related. There is also a pretty decent book about this that I will link.


>I would also challenge somewhat the juxtaposition of Mexico as reactionary and the US as progressive. While it is true in the economic sense that the US had advanced farther, in other areas Mexico could be seen as more advanced. While prejudice and poor and violent treatment of indigenous and afro-Mexicans were undeniably significant problems, it must also be noted that racial equality has been a legal (though not social reality) in Mexico since 1821.

The way I think the question should be framed is this: what is most progressive in its historical context? Racism and slavery are obviously bad. But, the real issue of the late 18th-19th century was the interrelated issue of bourgeois democracy and the aristocracy. The United States, mostly abolished its aristocracy after 1776, leaving intact only a class of slave-owners (who were business-minded) that ruled over around 10-15% of the population at best.

America's long-tradition of bourgeois democracy and lack of an aristocracy provided fertile soil for capitalism to grow. Mexico had the geographical disadvantages that you noted but you did not note that its Northern half did have many of these advantages. The fact that the Mexican government invited Anglo settlers to develop Texas shows that 1. Mexico knew this territory possessed obvious advantages and potential 2. they were not able to develop it themselves for economic and/or demographic reasons.

If Wikipedia is accurate Mexico did not achieve universal suffrage until 1917. It also had a surprisingly tenacious aristocracy. I agree with you that Mexico was making progress and had progressive elements; its hard to know what would have happened if the Mexican-American war hadn't haPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


Max was kike idiot.

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


Ask questions about Albania and/or Enver Hoxha here.

127 posts and 76 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: e24382a26364d84⋯.jpg (531.9 KB, 981x780, 327:260, Hoxha students.jpg)


Anything specific?



What was education, healthcare and consumer industry like?



The relevant chapters of the following book do a better job explaining education and health care than I could: https://espressostalinist.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/a-coming-of-age.pdf

As for consumer goods, they were generally in short supply, especially by 1990 as the economy worsened and spare parts in industry became hard to come by.



What about Agriculture?



Albania became self-sufficient in grain in 1976, but agricultural productivity remained low overall.

Delete Post [ ]
Previous [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
| Catalog | Nerve Center | Cancer
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 8cup / britfeel / hkon9 / o / rzabczan / vg / vichan / zoo ]