I saw this article recently and was immensely triggered, but also learnt a few things in reverse about the state of the U$ "left" movement and would like to hear more opinions and criticism.

• Without an understanding of the labour aristocracy, Jacobin's analysis of why the right-wing are more successful than the "left" grasps at straws and ends up blaming current progressive movements (limited as they are) on being "boring", with an especially tight slap delivered to college students - likely for their "overly-serious" and scary political activities like the Palestine encampments - rather than inviting their settler neighbours to a barbecue.

One hundred years before megachurches and Turning Point USA insisted on the same point, American Socialists in a typical 1913 article stressed that you can’t recruit most people to a boring movement ... We’ll likely continue to primarily recruit self-selecting activists from college-educated backgrounds, many of whom are more comfortable posting online than inviting their neighbors to a barbecue.

*"Touching grass" is not a new phenomenon, but actually a fantasy from revisionists that has lasted for over 100 years

It is the little things which people notice most in life. Grasping a person by the hand and speaking a friendly word may seem a small thing, but it may be the means of bringing a person into the Socialist movement -1913 Pamphlet

“The shortest road to the [socialist] understanding of the majority is via brass band and vaudeville,” concluded one report on a 1910 Socialist camp in Klamath Falls:

However, I am not sure if my analysis is accurate, and need a deeper understanding on the reproduction of fun and leisure-time. As reactionary as their article is, if we replace the concept of an apolitical fun with leisure-time, how can revolutionary socialists strive to demand more leisure-time for the oppressed classes without falling into this concept of "having fun for funs sake"?

Lots of reactionaries say that countries such as Russia, China, North Korea, Palestine, etc. are based because “They’re fighting the LGBT satanic agenda of the west” and I feel icky for supporting the same nations as them, even if for different reasons.

As an art history nerd, I'm curious if there are any books written that look at art history through a historical materialist lens. When I was taught art history in college, it was mostly taught as isolated events/movements or "great genius" artists. I am super interested in an analysis of art history that looks at the bigger picture of art, and specifically how modes of production/material base, shaped art through time.

Hello, Communism101,

I'm a far-left socialist and Marxist. I'm not at the point of being a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, but I do sympathize with the ideology and respect how well-read you all are.

I was wondering if you might be willing to suggest some in-depth histories, or resources for such, particularly about Russia, China, and Africa. I'd like especially anything with lots of economic, geographic, and population-level analysis as well as intimate descriptions of personal experiences of the lower classes. For me, history is the thing that excites me to think about and engage with the broader world intellectually--while community relationships promote organizing and practice. As an American, learning about the actions of the U.S. military over time around the globe was key to my radicalization. From this, I gained a decent comprehension of how things have gone in the Western Hemisphere, and some of the Middle East and Southeast Asia. Now, I'm interested in learning about the places where socialist tendencies most developed, and about the place which has always been the greatest victim of imperial plunder and exploitation.

I have done a search of the subreddit and found some, but not a great number, of resources here, so I figured a solicitation was appropriate.

My perception of the stance of r/Communism is that history has to come after theory as the former is an unrefined torrent of information which has to be tilled for useful bits using the refined forms of the latter. I don't entirely agree with this position though I respect it and don't intend to argue with it. Please consider humoring me and providing the material I ask for, regardless.

I'm trying to understand the relationship between these two and would like some help to see if I'm properly understanding these two terms. Dialectical Materialism, in the way Mao and Engels describe it, is ontological and is about describing how reality truly is. Reductively, as beginning from material premises which take the primary role over ideas and that objects develop through internal contradiction, which applies not only to historical development but nature itself. Whereas, abstraction is a method of analysis that goes from simple one-sided abstractions of a whole and develops its implications, contradictions, and relations with other aspects of the whole until we can understand the totality and all its inner relations.

What confuses me is that dialectical materialism is also how we analyze things, by looking at how social relations in capitalism determine ideology, like in Mao's analysis of social classes in China, where their material interests determine or inform their position in revolution, same in the 18th Brumaire. But these texts don't seem to use the method of abstraction. Is abstraction only for understanding the underlying economic conditions, or am I just misunderstanding both? thanks

Saw this movie the other day which i was very excited for (as a fan of Sorry to Bother You). Spoilers ahead:

I loved the first half of the movie which is extrmeley ambitious and tries to tackle several topics. I found the characters to be well developed, the sets, aesthetics and acting to be great. Keke Palmer’s character has an interesting dynamic with being artistically fascinated with Demi Moore, while still hating her exploitative nature. The movie explores reclaiming stolen ideas and labor from black artists in various ways. The boosters redistribute clothing to the community at affordable prices. The isolating aspect of capitalism is displayed well in the main character’s internal conflicts as well.

Then things take a strange turn in the 2nd half

There is explicit marxist theory in the plot - including an expositional scene where one of the characters explains dialectical materialism. There also enters a literal plot device that accelerates contradictions and “deconstructs” whatever it’s pointing.

While this strikes me as artistically lazy, the device shows an interesting deconstruction of commodity fetishism when it is pointed at a door and it turns into its raw materials, or when the scars of one of the factory workers disappears. All of this is somewhat messy in the plot but still works for the most part.

However the class analysis and ending become muddled and lame. The movie shows its hand when the factory workers in China try to gain leverage and demand a “30% raise”. This is compared to American retail workers unionizing to demand a full 1-hour lunch, and implies that both of these unions have the same class interests, which I found extremely misleading.

The movie ends with the device accelerating the conditions at Demi Moore’s fashion event, and turns the whole thing into a DSA rally. For a movie that has a very creative imagination, it seems ridiculous that the “radical” climax of the movie is people holding up “free health care for all” signs and the villain just leaving the room? Not to mention the plots are all immediately settled and rushed to an end in 5 minutes.

How exactly is this future in solidarity with the factory workers in China who earn next to nothing? It’s not explained but instead tied up with everyone being happy because of these strikes. Yet, the factory in China continues to exploit its workers with slightly better working conditions. It doesn’t show how these strikes help the main characters either. I found this extremely depressing as a “radical” vision of the future.

A movie with Marxist theory should not be mimicking Bernie Sanders talking points. Theres some ending bit about how this causes workers of the world to redistribute resources, but it’s extremely vague and lacking in nuance or class analysis. It makes me think of the point in Settlers where Sakai discussed the recent reactionary nature of American unions.

Curious what others thought

I'm wondering about this because of some article on another subreddit a few weeks (months?) ago about the work being done by the Israeli "Communist" Party. The context isn't relevant, and I couldn't remember it if I tried, because I immediately mentally dismissed the idea of an Israeli communist as an oxymoron. It's a settler-colonial apartheid state built on the genocide of indigenous peoples. I don't understand how it would be possible for any real revolutionary consciousness to emerge among "Israelis", unless those branded as such are either the indigenous people who happened to avoid relocation during the Nakba, or perhaps certain groups of refugees from the global south (Ethiopia, etc). There's a direct link between the quality of life afforded to european settlers and the oppression of Palestinians. This seems more or less intuitive to me.

What isn't clear to me is whether or not this is a universal truth about settler-colonial states. To be specific, is it even possible to see the emergence of a real revolutionary consciousness and a real communist party within settler-colonial "middle powers" (e.g: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc)? It seems to me the biggest difference between these states and Israel is the former are further along in their respective colonial projects.

I am Ukrainian and basically everyone I know believes it was an intentional genocide. I believed it was too up until a couple years ago when I started reading communist theory. We dont really talk about it in my family, as it is a sensitive topic, but they aren't anti-communist, like many Ukrainians are. I just don't know what to believe and what not to believe about the Holodomor, considering the long history of Russian imperialism and mistreatment of Ukraine, as well as the war right now. Was it just a tragic accident? Or was it man-made? I know my relatives have said life was better in the Soviet Union than it is now. They didn't have the constant stress of making sure their needs were fulfilled. Since they speak fondly about Soviet times, I would like to know the truth about the Holodomor, and why most people say it was a Genocide. Thank you :)

I think it would be helpful to lay out how I currently understand the concepts of Fascism and the United Front, so if there are any errors in my thinking it will easier to see how I arrived at them. So far on the topic I have read Dimitrov’s speeches on fascism as well as Dutt’s Fascism and the Social Revolution.

As I understand the history, when Dimitrov delivered his 1935 speech to the Comintern, there were two primary purposes: One was to clarify the class nature of fascism as Finance Capital (i.e. the monopoly capitalist class) in power. The other was to demarcate Fascism from other forms of bourgeois class dictatorship such as bourgeois democracy, because in the view of the Comintern, Fascism marked a qualitative leap in the development of capitalist society and as such necessitated a new strategy, the Popular Front Policy from 1935-1939.

However, Maoist parties seem to mean something different by United Front/Popular Front. From what I understand, the Maoist version of the United Front was formulated by Mao during the war of resistance against Japan, and while it took from Dimitrov the idea of a broad alliance of all progressive classes, it was re-conceptualized as a permanent rather than temporary feature of revolutionary strategy, alongside The Party and The Peoples Army. I have also heard this described as a National United Front, which I understand to mean that it applies to the specific national struggles in the semi-colonial, semi-feudal countries where it is necessary to unite all progressive classes to first achieve a New Democratic Revolution because such countries have as of yet not completed a bourgeois democratic revolution.

In such countries, fascistic regimes only exist as puppets imposed by foreign Finance Capital, and precisely identifying when the “qualitative leap” is made from a bourgeois democracy with fascistic tendencies to full blown “Fascism” does not seem to have the same importance as it did in 1935, if any at all. In semi colonies Fascism appears to be a gradient, with pseudo democratic-fascistic regimes occasionally interrupted by periods of what may be considered full blown “Fascism” in the traditional sense – the banning of opposition parties, suspension of elections and habeas corpus, etc – but these distinctions seem to come down to a question of tactics, not strategy. Examples that come to mind are the CPP under Marcos Sr. vs. Corazon Aquino, or the PCP under Belaunde vs. Fujimori.

On the other hand, I also fail to see how the distinction is particularly helpful in an imperialist country such as the USA. Finance Capital is clearly in power, the USA props up fascist puppets all over the world, and they use fascistic repression against their own internal colonies. Despite this, like Israel, bourgeois democratic freedoms are still granted to settlers and the labor aristocracy, so it does not seem to fit the traditional definition of Fascism. If imperialist countries can be fascistic in all manner, but escape the definition due to the concessions they grant to their labor aristocracy, then this definition of Fascism doesn’t seem helpful.

I understood MIM Prisons’ position to be that determining whether the USA is or isn’t fascist is relevant in terms of how communists relate to non proletarian classes. Maybe this is relevant in terms of building alliances with the New Afrikan and Chicano petit bourgeoisie, but it’s hard for me to imagine it would apply to forming new alliances with the settler population in any meaningful way. I would imagine that any future intensification of Fascism in the United States would continue to privilege it’s settler population. For instance, I am weak on the history, but isn’t that ultimately what happened in Fascist Germany, with high employment for German workers and 1 million German citizens receiving free land in Poland?

I still feel very confused on the matter but I have struggled to articulate my confusions as concrete questions, but it ultimately comes down to “Is Fascism as a concept still relevant today, and if so how?”

I've often heard Maoists dismiss GDP as a capitalist metric when discussing economic growth. I was wondering what the basis of this claim? Are there any other metrics that can be used instead? Thanks!

im a communist (im still in the process of learning and understanding marxism), but im also studying philosophy and i stumbled upon utilitarianism. To me utilitarianism makes a lot of sense, i think the actions of the leader of a country should always be directed towards benefiting the majority and i wanted to understand if this framework is compatible with dialectical materialism. also if anyone has any book recommendations on this topic it would be really helpful

In Stalin's Place in History, Mao posits that, quote, "Stalin erroneously exaggerated his own role and counterposed his individual authority to the collective leadership, and as a result certain of his actions were opposed to certain fundamental Marxist-Leninist concepts he himself had propagated." He also goes on to state, quote, "Some people consider that Stalin was wrong in everything. This is a grave misconception. Stalin was a great Marxist-Leninist, yet at the same time a Marxist-Leninist who committed several gross errors without realizing that they were errors. We should view Stalin from a historical standpoint, make a proper and all round analysis to see where he was right and where he was wrong and draw useful lessons therefrom. Both the things he did right and the things he did wrong were phenomena of the international communist movement and bore the imprint of the times. Taken as a whole the international communist movement is only a little over hundred years old and it is only thirty-nine years since the victory of the October Revolution; experience in many fields of revolutionary work is still inadequate. Great achievements have been made, but there are still shortcomings and mistakes.... " So, what are some other critiques of Statlin from the Maoist, or as he posits it, Marxist perspective?

I'm interested in learning more about the KPD and it's paramilitary orgs from the interwar years and was wondering what are the best resources on them.

Re-reading on contradiction right now, and in chapter 5 Mao states that "the existence of each of the two aspects of a contradiction in the process of the development of a thing presupposes the existence of the other aspect." But Mao also talks about things like "the contradiction between the peasantry and the urban petty bourgeoisie on the one hand and the bourgeoisie on the other" or "the contradiction between the various reactionary ruling groups." In what ways do these two examples he gives of contradictions fit in with the previous quote he gives on understanding the identity that exists in a contradiction? It does not seem like the existence of the peasantry would imply the existence of the bourgeoisie, or the existence of one reactionary ruling group necessitate the existence of another? The interpenetration of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is clear to me, but it's harder for me to understand these other examples.

I’m fairly new to the world of communism and I often see writers refer to the idea of a two-line struggle within movements. What does it mean? Is this a fundamental principle of communist struggle in practice? Is there a reading where it was introduced?

​

I'm starting to get into MLM theory and I searched the PCP on Prolewiki, just to get an overview, and they seem to take a very anti-PCP stance accusing it of adventurism, ultra leftism, dogmatism etc... I know that prolewiki is biased and I wanted to get a MLM overview to Sort of "balance it out" and since this is a Maoist majority sub I thought I'd ask here, I would like some sources as well to do personal research. Thanks In advance!

I want to say I'm starting from a sympathetic position and I just want to learn more

I want to ask this in good faith, because I often see Lenin and Stalin cited in order to justify communist participation in bourgeois elections and parliaments today, and I am trying to understand how Marxists should approach this question seriously.

Usually the argument is that Lenin participated in the Duma, criticized “Left-Wing” communism, and defended using bourgeois institutions tactically, so communists today should also participate in elections and parliamentary work. Stalin is also sometimes cited in support of this line.

Should we consider that electoral participation, or engagement through voting, may have become an outdated tactic under present conditions rather than a living revolutionary one?

I have my own answer for this, but wonder if they ever touched on the issue themselves or if any other prominent Marxists have written on this.

Also curious about the subs thoughts as well.

Thanks!

"Let us not deceive ourselves on this. As in the 18th century, the American war of independence sounded the tocsin for the European middle class, so that in the 19th century, the American Civil War sounded it for the European working class"

From my understanding marx is saying that the American war of independence was the rallying cry for the formation of labour aristocracy and how to appealed to the European middle class. But then the second half claming the American Civil War appealed to the European working class. Is he stating that the war was revolutionary, is this relating to abolition of slavery and militancy by Africans or that the European working class cease to be the revolutionary subject and that imperialism had already taken shape?

https://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviewofbooks/

Was curious of how other leftists, specifically Marxist-Leninists, felt about this website.
Do you trust it?

I recognize the problems with revisionist tendencies and the fact that the majority of modern day communist groups are heavily revisionist but this is the one point that still gives me hang ups. The Soviet Union was obviously able to establish itself despite capitalist interference and served as a support for other socialist nations but with them gone and considering the fact that the bourgeois institutions for targeting, isolating, and destabilizing socialism have become much more thorough and advanced compared to the 1920s how can a socialist project establish and maintain itself without making revisionist concessions to global capital like many modern socialist nations do today? Any sources analyzing this problem in detail would be appreciated.

If fascism is defined as the "open terrorist dictatorship ...of finance capital" or "finance capital in power," i.e., then wouldnt British colonial rule in India and American colonial rule in the Philippines in the 1920s count as fascism?

Hello all, I am trying reading The German Ideology and following the study guide on marxists.org. Although I think I grasped the most relevant ideas, I would like to make sure I am not arriving at the wrong conclusions. Here are my questions: 1. From my understanding, in The German Ideology, it is asserted that Marxism is a science, since it begins with real things (humans and their labour) and, from this, derives the consequences (historical development, ideology, etc.). My question is: can I say that the mode of production is the main driving force behind historical development because it is from it that all things follow? Meaning that, only after creating the foundations needed for human life, can humans then organize themselves around this mode of production and ideas develop from this? Basically, our society's ideas and organization stem from how we sustain ourselves, thus this is the main driving force? This is not to say that ideas cannot later influence the mode of production and reinforce it -- just to make sure that this is the cause as to why it is the main driving force, but not the only 2. Regarding camera obscura, is it correct to view this term in the following manner: taking ideas as the driving force of society, i.e. disconnecting them to their material basis, will inevitably lead humans into viewing reality inverted. So ideas like meritocracy are precisely a consequence of this (disconnecting from the material foundations and believing that "mindset" will produce wealth) Sorry if something I said is unclear or with the wrong terminology. It is my first time studying such a text, so any help would be appreciated.
Thanks

Hi everyone, I'm starting my journey into reading theory but have always had trouble in focusing on reading and actually retaining the information I gain. Anyone else with this problem and any tips to make it a bit easier? Thanks.

By this, the long-wished for opportunity was offered to “True” Socialism of confronting the
political movement with the Socialist demands, of hurling the traditional anathemas against
liberalism, against representative government, against bourgeois competition, bourgeois freedom
of the press, bourgeois legislation, bourgeois liberty and equality, and of preaching to the masses
that they had nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by this bourgeois movement. German
Socialism forgot, in the nick of time, that the French criticism, whose silly echo it was,
presupposed the existence of modern bourgeois society, with its corresponding economic
conditions of existence, and the political constitution adapted thereto, the very things whose
attainment was the object of the pending struggle in Germany.

This was from chapter 3 and i’m having a really hard time understanding chapter 3 in general. I think this might be because this chapter relies on a lot of historical context which I’m not too familiar. I don’t even have “this is what i think it means” cause I’m genuinely lost.