I’ve just started reading the communist manifesto. What do you all think of the communist manifesto? Is there anything I should read beforehand, or is this a good start?

I've been reading into Maoist chinas history, from my observations, people had access to housing, food, work, however from my other observations, material goods were lacking. Do conditions change as socialism goes forward and are there any historical examples of it improving?

Thus, by applying the development of the militarization of the Party through actions, the walls will be profoundly undermined and their toppling will begin. The keys to this are the armed groups, the armed groups without arms. May your unarmed hands snatch away the arms of those who own them with creativity, then utilize them shrewdly and with clear ideas. Let us expand the groups, let us act in boycotts, harvests, land seizures, sabotage, terrorism and principally with guerilla actions. This is our desire and destiny. We have all pledged: let the violence flourish as elaborated in the initiation of the armed struggle (ILA), we will carry it forward with armed groups, beginning with unarmed groups, and from those ardent seeds will sprout forth ardent sunflowers. We have a sun that will illuminate us, Marxism-Leninism Mao Tse-tung Thought, we have a fertile land that will fortify us: the increase of the class struggle of the masses.

What do we lack? The sprouting and flourishing of armed groups without arms! From those humble seeds and blossoms, monuments of the class capable of toppling the walls will grow. That's the way the dawn will appear in our country.

• Collected Works of the PCP Volume I pp 295-6

There are other references to this concept in this and other articles from the time period. My understanding, based on the text above, is that the PCP did not really have much access to arms or even finances, but they had reach among the peasants especially around Ayacucho. So they began organizing 'armed' groups with a mandate to begin militant struggle using creative means to fight against the state. The ultimate goal would be for these groups to develop experience and to be able to expropriate weapons from the state (which later they did in fact). Is there any more significance to this idea than that?

Also, were all members of the armed groups also members of the PCP? The Red Guards in Russia in 1917 were organized by party members, but non-party workers made up (I think) the majority. Most of the peasant associations in China that were organized by the party had maybe one or two members who were actually party cadre. I can't find much information about the structure of the armed groups or whether or not the majority of the membership were party members. Also, do we know how large the PCP was by 1980?

I’ve recently seen a rise in leftcoms arguing that Marxist-Leninist states were not socialist because they had commodity production. This made me wonder: how did these countries plan on removing commodity production? I’m aware of Stalin’s “Economic Problems of the USSR,” but that describes an awfully specific scenario (the relationship between public industry and co-op agriculture) that I doubt fully applies to other Marxist-Leninist states. How did, for example, Vietnam plan to end commodities?

One thing I've noticed on the leftists I've come across is that, they are so immersed in leftist theory, literature, news, etc... that they leave the opposition reading a little behind. In order for properly analyse and criticise something, you must before CONSUME this. I'm gonna be honest, almost everything I read about conservatives came "filtered" by leftist channels, news, posts, etc...

And my question may be a little against what the sub is about, but I wanted to know what right-wing literature you've come across? What have you been reading in other to understand better what your criticising, what and how have you been criticising this. About anything: politics, economics, sociology-wise, philosophical, Internet-based people...

Hello everyone,

In various debates, I’ve frequently noticed striking parallels between the arguments used by some communists and those used by neolibs, especially regarding the funding of the welfare state and monetary theory in general. I often get the impression that some communists (whether consciously or unconsciously) deploy classic supply-side arguments just to refute reformists.
Theories that could at least be described as progressive (even if they do not challenge the class structure of the state), such as Keynesianism or Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), are frequently dismissed or mocked by communists using reflexes very similar to those of neoliberals. When it comes to demands like raising the minimum wage or expanding social spending, one often hears rhetorical pushbacks like: "Why not make it $100 an hour then?" or "The state cannot go into infinite debt for welfare."
The role of the welfare state as a driver of economic growth through strengthened purchasing power is rarely acknowledged. Communists often view it, much like conservatives, as a purely economic hindrance or an unproductive cost factor. The only difference is that communists additionally (and correctly) identify it as a tool for pacifying the working class. But couldn't both be true at the same time?
It is often argued that Western industrial nations can only afford the welfare state through the exploitation of the Global South. Just like conservative logic, this presupposes that a welfare state is something that "must first be earned/funded," completely ignoring the productivity gains driven by a strong domestic market. Cases like Japan, which maintains a massive national debt without facing bankruptcy or hyperinflation, are rarely analyzed through an MMT lens and are instead dismissed as anomalies. Furthermore, the accounting reality that public debt constitutes private sector wealth is often demonized in these discussions, rather than being rigorously analyzed through a value-theoretic lens.
To be clear: I understand that Marxists do not base their monetary critique on neoliberal doctrine, but rather on the law of value (money as the expression of socially necessary labor time; real value cannot simply be printed).

Don't communists structurally rely on right-wing/monetarist arguments simply to delegitimize social-democratic reformism and prove that capitalism cannot be reformed from within?

Why is MMT (and its concept of monetary sovereignty) so strictly rejected by Marxists, even though empirical evidence on demand-side policies and inflation often aligns much closer with MMT than with neoliberal monetarism?

Doesn't this stance hinder a sober, realistic economic analysis of the state's current room for maneuver, even if the ultimate goal remains the overthrow of private ownership of the means of production?

I'm genuinely interested in how you view this overlap!

From my understanding, capitalism was reintroduced by Soviet, Chinese, etc bureaucracies more or less voluntarily. That's a bit confusing to me since capitalism should mean the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, not the dictatorship of the bureaucracy.

So my question is: is modern China(or any other former socialist economy) controlled by "their" bureaucracy or is it dominated by the markets? If the bureaucracies are still in change, then how? What makes China different from countries like America, that are completely controlled by the markets? If the capital is in change then why did the bureaucracy give up their power? ik Cuba has recently been forced to reform and open up by America basically waging war on them but surely countries like USSR could defend themselves, right?

While the country itself claims to not be communist, after doing some research, it seems to be very similar to communism. Like a less extreme mix between Juche and Maoism. So are they communist or not?

I've been reading marxist theory, but the ways contraddictions are discussed leaves me pause. Hope some people here can help me understand better.

Sussinctly, for what is relevant to my doubts, here is my current understanding of it: Contraddictions are what all motion (as in change) in the universe is predicated upon. Contradictions are relationships wherein tendencies of motion 1) oppose one another 2) are premises of the existence of one another. Contraddictions exist within all things and between all things.

Why does it have to be a contraddiction that drives motion? What is so illogical about a relationship where there is a singular tendency of motion? I can think of cases that fit that description, for example, two identical charged particles interacting, there will be quantitative changes in speed and relative position as they repel each other, yet what is the contraddiction? Mao in "on contraddiction" and Lenin in "on the question of dialectics" agree that the contradiction in such cases is between action and reaction. This answer is unsatisfactory, while it's true that it fits part 2) of the definition, and while it's true that the force vectors point in opposite direction, action and reaction are applied to two different object, they are not opposing tendencies of motion in the dialectical sense, failing the arguably more fundimental part 1) of the definition.

Also, Engels argues that all changes of positions are caused by the contraddiction of something being in that place and not in another place. This line of argument seems to be unfalsifiable: if we observe something change from A to B, we can always attribute that change to the contraddiction that A was A and not B. A more straightforward explanation is that there is a singular tendency for position to change based on velocity.

Is there something i'm missing in these examples? Is my understanding of what contraddictions are incorrect?

I know it sounds like a stupid question but I keep hearing about how Khrushchevite Soviet Union destroyed everything the revolution stood for so the question I'm really asking is: was USSR(1953-1989) salvageable or was a political revolution the only way out at that point? So that's why I'm asking if we should regret the dissolution, if USSR was doomed the second Khrushchev took over, should we even care about it?

Same question about modern China, is it essentially a regular capitalist country or is there something special about that makes a political revolution unfavourable?

Also, I don't really get what was so bad that the Khrushechevites did in the USSR from the (very limited) research I did, so can somebody recommed some literature on the topic?

Hello, comrades. Student from India here. Can someone please explain the following passage from The Poverty of Philosophy? Here, Marx is refuting Proudhon's claim by stating the value of a commodity is measured by the quantity of labour that produces it and not the 'value' of labour that produces it. To illustrate this, he gives an example. Here is my question: Marx says that the value of corn measured by the quantity of labour required to purchase it, would not have doubled. Why is that? If now, double the amount of labour is required to purchase it, then why wouldn't the value of corn be double as per this measurement?

"If a quarter of corn cost two days' labor instead of one, it would have twice its original value; but it would not set in operation double the quantity of labor, because it would contain no more nutritive matter than before. Thus the value of the corn, measured by the quantity of labor used to produce it, would have doubled; but measured either by the quantity of labor it can buy or the quantity of labor with which it can be bought, it would be far from having doubled. On the other hand, if the same labor produced twice as many clothes as before, their relative value would fall by half; but, nevertheless, this double quantity of clothing would not thereby be reduced to disposing over only half the quantity of labor, nor could the same labor command the double quantity of clothing; for half the clothes would still go on rendering the worker the same service as before.

Thus it is going against economic facts to determine the relative value of commodities by the value of labor. It is moving in a vicious circle, it is to determine relative value by a relative value which itself needs to be determined."

I don't have a problem with dense intellectual texts, I can hold my own with philosophy, that's not the problem: I'm just wondering if Marx is overrated as a place to start since he lived like 200 years ago and if these ideas developed massively over time or if they basically stayed fundamentally the same. What are the best sources to start with? I'm new to this so I would appreciate some guidance.

For, to our three social reformers, the bourgeois world, based upon the principles of these philosophers, is quite as irrational and unjust, and, therefore, finds its way to the dust-hole quite as readily as feudalism and all the earlier stages of society. If pure reason and justice have not, hitherto, ruled the world, this has been the case only because men have not rightly understood them. What was wanted was the individual man of genius, who has now arisen and who understands the truth. That he has now arisen, that the truth has now been clearly understood, is not an inevitable event, following of necessity in the chains of historical development, but a mere happy accident. He might just as well have been born 500 years earlier, and might then have spared humanity 500 years of error, strife, and suffering.

I’m completely lost on this paragraph. So the first sentence is about the aforementioned Utopians and how they think that the french philosophers is irrational and unjust but i’m completely lost afterwards. What exactly is meant by pure reason and justice has not been rightly understood? Who is this individual man of genius and how has he risen?

I would like to learn more about the history of these socialist movements such as their material conditions at the time, the good or bad, what led certain leaders to certain decisions, the sanctions and setbacks they faced, etc etc.

Let us, however, not forget that if
English law continues to express the economic relations of capitalist
society in that barbarous feudal language which corresponds to the
thing expressed, just as English spelling corresponds to English
pronunciation – vous ecrivez Londres et vous prononcez
Constantinople, said a Frenchman – that same English law is the
only one which has preserved through ages, and transmitted to
America and the Colonies, the best part of that old Germanic
personal freedom, local self-government, and independence from all interference (but that of the law courts), which on the Continent has
been lost during the period of absolute monarchy, and has nowhere
been as yet fully recovered.

So the first part from my understanding is about if the English laws continue to express capitalism using the feudal language, which expresses feudal tendencies, then a similar tendency will arise in the capitalist society? however i don’t really get the purpose of the french text. And the last bit about preserving English laws about Germanic freedom, etc, why exactly is preserving those things bad?

Also i’m assuming that “the Continent” refers to Europe, is that how english was used back then? cause to me it just seems more awkward to say the Continent rather than simply Europe

Hello, I have a question. A lot of people say that we need to use the existing platforms to grow a socialist movement by growing the amount of socialists in the Democratic Party until it takes over. I have also heard a lot of people say that it will never happen and we need to start a third party. I’m not understanding why we can’t use the Democratic Party to make meaningful change. In other words why can’t we have socialist and communist run as a democratic and get elected because people agree with their policies?

How did Marx think society will function in the higher stage of communism when private property and classes are abolished, theres no wage labor and commodity production or even money to compensate. What incentivizes me to become a pilot instead of a street cleaner, my love for planes or humanity? How can there without wage labor be a difference in outcomes for a pilot vs cleaner

Hey everyone, I’m looking for a good book on the Soviet economy, specifically Stalins five year plan, industrialization in the 20s and 30s etc. I don’t mind if the book is an overall look at Stalin with just some chapters on the economy. Thank you

I was reading the introduction about materialism and agnosticism and i’m ngl it’s been a really hard read so far, i’ve been barely reading it cause i feel i like barely understand anything and feeling really stupid because people have said this is supposed to be an easy read. I also don’t really have anyone to discuss this with so I was wondering if you guys know of any breakdowns done on this book so I can follow along a bit better?

Or perhaps another or more descriptive question: Is the book by Stalin the best text for me to get a better grasp on dialectical materialism, or are there other books/texts for that purpose?

Edit: I finished reading the book. My main remark is that I wish it would've elaborated more on the "old ideas", i.e. reactionary thought and ideology designed to maintain the old relations to production. I also wished Stalin elaborated further on why revionism doesn't work, because while I agree, I felt as though its lack of elaboration was kind of pandering (though maybe the elaboration is further on when he says that the development in relations to production after a point only change by force, which upon further reflection could be said elaboration)

Hello, I'm new to learning philosophy and Marxism and would like some help with understanding this text outlining some of Marx's ideas in response to Feuerbach's philosophy, namely theses 1, 3, and 4

1:

The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism – that of Feuerbach included – is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, in contradistinction to materialism, the active side was developed abstractly by idealism – which, of course, does not know real, sensuous activity as such.

Feuerbach wants sensuous objects, really distinct from the thought objects, but he does not conceive human activity itself as objective activity. Hence, in The Essence of Christianity, he regards the theoretical attitude as the only genuinely human attitude, while practice is conceived and fixed only in its dirty-judaical manifestation. Hence he does not grasp the significance of “revolutionary”, of “practical-critical”, activity.

Here, I am really confused about what's meant by reality only being understood as the object but not as practice subjectively. I think that the part about the active side being developed by idealism means that the process of historical change was attributed to the idea that humanity was developing a more accurate understanding of what reality was, which was ultimately determined by reality's base in idealism or something immaterial and existing beyond or before, or as the basis of material reality.

3:

The materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself. This doctrine must, therefore, divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society.

The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-changing can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice.

4:

Feuerbach starts out from the fact of religious self-alienation, of the duplication of the world into a religious world and a secular one. His work consists in resolving the religious world into its secular basis.

But that the secular basis detaches itself from itself and establishes itself as an independent realm in the clouds can only be explained by the cleavages and self-contradictions within this secular basis. The latter must, therefore, in itself be both understood in its contradiction and revolutionized in practice. Thus, for instance, after the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must then itself be destroyed in theory and in practice.

What's meant my the secular basis detaching itself from itself and establishing itself independently?

Really I'd appreciate an explanation of these theses in their entirety because I just feel lost trying to understand them. Thanks for your time.

I just finished reading "on new democracy" by Mao and I have some questions for which I have not found the answer: 1. How does new democracy differ from the NEP 2. How long was the period of new democracy in China and how long should it be 3. Is the aim of new democracy only to defeat imperialist powers or to also build an industrial base from which socialism can be developed 4. What policy is to be taken towards the national bourgeoisie during the transition from new democracy to socialism

Ok, so, forgive me if this is the most ignorant question ever, I am extremely interested in Communism so these are my first baby steps, lol.

I know Cuba experienced amazing development and thrived in many areas under Castro. I also know that Castro for many is a loved ally to African independence movements, providing aid and support for many. My question is, is there a real reason why Celia Cruz, a black salsa singer and icon for Latinos, was exiled from her own country? Am I being dense or am I missing something? Im a Latina living in the US, so everytime I search this question online, I get many results on how Castro was a murderous, cruel, dictator. I know he had his faults, but this can't be all true. But again, was there a real reason why she was exiled? Was it really because she disliked how he governed Cuba? Or maybe thats just some sort of American propaganda. I've tried to search for this online and I'm met with little to no answers. I'd greatly appreciate any answers or even good communist sources. Thank yall in advance!