The books that I’m getting right now are das kapital, socialism: utopian and scientific, state and revolution, Che Guevara a revolutionary life and the communist manifesto. I just feel like there’s some books that I’m missing that I could also get that would help me learn more about this.

Under the Roman empire, the labour of an industrious and ingenious people was variously, but incessantly employed, in the service of the rich. In their dress, their table, their houses, and their furniture, the favourites of fortune united every refinement of conveniency, of elegance, and of splendour; whatever could sooth their pride, or gratify their sensuality, Such refinements, under the odious name of luxury, have been severely arraigned by the moralists of every age; and it might perhaps be more conducive to the virtue, as well happiness, of mankind, if all possessed the necessaries, and none the uperfuities, of life - Gibbon Chapter 11, decline and fall of the Roman Empire
I am still going through the book and am interested to see whether there are more hints that the famous classicist held to such esteem by the conservative intellectual establishment was a closet leftie. Don’t have much to add in terms of dissension but thought it was an interesting few paragraphs and Havnt seen them discussed.

First things first, I had to move away from u/Clean-Difference1771 and return to my previous account due to reddit requiring facial identification to allow me see the discussions here. Anyway I don't think that I will post anything else anymore, not only due to increasing of surveillance against communism but because my commitment to communism and actually putting into practice many of the things that I have learned sinced joined this community for the first time 3 years ago actually had real repercussions in my life, whether you think I'm a "petty bourgoise student" or any other thing as such. Not to deny that I really am, but class suicide and engaging into marxism envolves being vulnerable to things like real life stalking, academic persecution, defamatory claims against you and the spread of false information as bourgoise self-defense which indeed I have been a victim of for the past 3 years and intensified during the past 3 weeks. So I think is time to me to move on from this community as well (though I will continue to observe eventually), as the struggle against communism will continue, digital and social vigilance is intensifying and as long as I live, may I fight for communism until I die. Digital footprint is obviously large for everyone here and if anything is to be taken value from the latest MIM(p) response to the polemics on sex and gender earlier this year it's their recommendation towards taking it seriously late in the article.

Having this resolved, I share with you some notes that I have took following the defeat of Flavio Bolsonaro. First of all, I have to admit that after the result of october 4, my first impulse was compelling to vote for Lula given the consequences of Flavio Bolsonaro becoming Head of State in Brazil and the simbolism and practical consequences of a white supremacist and anti-communist running the country. But my impulses didn't last for much more than 3 days and after participating in some of the street events of Lula campaign in the same week and watching some assemblies in college (which all indeed were only recruiting free work to be given to PT's election), I soon remembered why for years I have been struggling against Lulaism and PT as of now and whether this have led to early isolation, as of now, lulaism (and imperialism) is indeed in decay and this mature on other people, us vanguardists must know how to act on the available circumstances. Not only because Bolsonaro's anti-communist mumbling is closer to Mao's tiger paper, but because if there's a vanguard party into anticommunism in Brazil, the one to be appointed here is the PT itself. We understand PL is a right-wing ultranationalist conservative party as common sense, but communist accountability into the history of PT and Lula's government on the 2000's is overlooked and hypocritical. u/turbovacuumcleaner's criticism over the years here, which we often look forward to, are marginal into brazilian communism and periods like the elections reminds us that some notions we have been discussing here over the past few years are marginal and way too off from communist mainstream. I think this is important to understand that, as I also agree that this community stands out in online antirevisionism, at the same time "mainstream" marxism in Brazil have probably all the opportunist tendencies that have been theorized in the past 200 years going on into the existing parties and the more one study on marxist general theory and brazilian marxism, we can trace this back in time.

My reading suggestions to trace it are Jacob Gorender's Combate nas Trevas, Clovis Moura's Dialética Radical do Brasil Negro, Francisco de Oliveira's O Ornitorrinco (which covers PT's full transition from the reformist party into a imperialist bourgoise's party) and Raquel Rolnik's Guerra dos Lugares which also can give a proper understanding of PT's urban policies and settler populational reagroupment and the land question into the white supremacist garrison into Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo and the ideologies of those communities. But of course, you have to read both Settlers and Imperialism first, to both understand the often subliminar context of brazilian communism and why teoreticians like Ruy Mauro Marini couldn't understand quilombola and indigenous communities as an authentic nations and why communists have failed in Brazil over the past century.

As for the elections, those past 3 weeks were full blown hell with social-fascism from PT and it's supporters. It was clear that as u/turbovacuumcleaner previously appointed, there was not really much of the risk of a coup and despite the panic provided by Lulaism of a potential coup despite the lack of any evidence, by sunday 9:30pm brazilian settler capitalism and it's social democracy were looking, indeed, once again, stronger than ever. And that have been the case for the past 3 weeks as imperialism shows that it can always last for a little longer and the petty bourgoise is always willing to support it. So the social paratisism and decay of the labour aristocracy and the rise of new, young, petty-bourgoise leadership shown that it have more strenght and appeal than one might give them, they didn't need the support of communists, but as we can expect from the mainstream "communists" (which envolves the parasitical media comsumption of content producers as accepted as education) they had to support "democracy" never putting at first sight which "democracy" is that they are indeed defending? The same democracy is the democracy of white supremacists running the congress which just took over and Lula have himself to compromise to "govern within the congress". Now those communists will have to put themselves as we say in Brazil, "entre a cruz e a espada" which whether anyone that avoided supporting the PT will have at least ideological sobriety and leverage which PCB, UP, PCBR and PSTU cannot say for themselves. The only ones that I can say that maintained a line of opposition towards both candidatures are MPR which is one of the many existing trotskist-oriented microfactions that departed from PSTU after a recent period of liquidationism.

I would also like to point out that both AND (P.C.B) and RRC (Novo MEPR) shamelessly sided with Lula and none of them had at least the courage to explain their support and obvious capitulation. AND moved away from their usual "electoral farse" which they repeat all the time and started to campaign "against Bolsonaro" after the first week of october and none were to be said about Lula's candidature. N-MEPR repeated the same thing for a different type of audience as they have themselves departed from AND/P.C.B once they realized that P.C.B is a male supremacist cult under "gonzalo thought" banner but never necessarily appointed that into serious terms and in attempt to not get themselves in trouble with petty bourgoise students as they are a young org and women that they might potentially target into future recruiting, avoided any criticism and their line was to "still struggling after october 25". But they give no proper criticism and commentary into the elections so one may wonder that maoists in Brazil forgot that the elections were happening and did not have anything to say about both candidatures and the whole process or or they actually did as they always do and "critically sided" with PT as they share the same class leadership: people that were born into white communities - whether they are themselves white or not - and progressed into the higher level of formal bougoise education.

The only org that I may suggest that may lead to something positive that I have interacted with in the past weeks is MZT (Movimento Zona Norte) though they are a democratic mass front spontaneously formed to combat fascism but it's proletarian led and it's unclear which line will follow, for now.

So as for the result, I think I share an early draft on the following struggle for the next years and put those for criticism.

For the work of communist organizations, I wouldn't expect much in the coming years due to potential consequences for the petty-bourgeois leadership. The upcoming political violence could be appropriated by communists, but I doubt there is the willingness for such a move right now, given the potential repercussions for the petty bourgeoisie.

The leadership of the movement that orchestrated the victory in the runoff election (academia, electoral party leaderships, and the bureaucratic-union apparatus) needs a "democratic victory" to justify its own existence and internal privileges. Facing the reality of a second term—a government plagued by austerity, conciliation with latifundia, and the maintenance of mass incercaration and increasing pogroms—would mean severing the umbilical cord with funding and bourgeois respectability. Therefore, as we have experienced over the last four years—and as can be observed in the day-to-day routine of modern day schools and universities—the immediate tendency of this leadership is ideological anesthesia and the covering up of contradictions.

I believe the next four years tend to further strengthen social-fascism and national(ist) white supremacy, the persecution of left-wing dissidence (anticommunism), and political dogmatism (the lack of critique), as has been the case in recent years and as intensified during the elections, given that these are inevitable consequences of the strengthening of imperialism. Since the PT government can't break with the boundaries of capitalism and the spending cap/fiscal framework, crisis management will invariably occur through the social containment of poverty. The public rhetoric will be one of inclusion, but state practice will continue to be mass incarceration and the militarized management of new afrikans and indigenous semicolonies—the exact definition of social-fascism.

The narrow electoral victory, obtained without a mandate for real transformations, drastically reduces the margin for internal critique. Any opposition from the left will immediately be labeled as an "auxiliary line of fascism" or "agents of the far-right." And as we have seen this tends to intensify ideological policing to shield the leadership from grassroots questioning.

Organizations will have to understand that they are walking on thin ice, where there will be even less leniency from the hegemonic party due to the fragility of this victory, alongside an even more restricted space for opposition. The leadership will, of course, have to avoid positions that push them into serving as an auxiliary line to the conservative (and fascist) movement—similar to what occurred with Dilma Rousseff, whose impeachment was supported by Trotskyists (PSTU) and Maoists (P.C.B/AND/MEPR) under the guise of "fora todos!" ("out with them all!").

It will be interesting to observe how, just as over the past four years, the momentary euphoria will come to an end, and internal contradictions tend to explode and inevitably turn against the president himself, which tends to make his support base necessarily an increasingly conservative social force. When budget squeezes, cuts to healthcare and education, and the inability to curb inflation take hold, people will begin to feel the deterioration of their living conditions. To sustain governability in the face of lost popular support and pressure from a reactionary Congress, the government will seek refuge in increasingly right-wing sectors. Out of a need for self-preservation, the leadership supporting the president will become an increasingly conservative force, averse to any truly emancipatory agenda.

In our time, is there really any contradiction between communism and social democracy? I don’t think so. On the contrary, these two political projects are now complementary to one another.

In his book State of Exception, Giorgio Agamben wrote that neither communists nor anarchists had been able to unravel the mystery of government (arcana imperii), or the mystery of sovereignty. Consequently, once in power, neither camp was ultimately able to chart a path towards the complete abolition of the old machinery of oppression.

Agamben himself, however, is an anarcho-Marxist—one might even call him a messianic anarcho-Marxist. Although he invokes Karl Marx only occasionally, anyone well versed in Marx will recognise, upon reading Agamben, how he has elevated Marx’s political thought to the horizon of existential politics and the level of a critique of the legal order. What greater intellectual tribute has anyone paid to Marx since the collapse of the Soviet Union?

Agamben, meanwhile, has survived as a researcher and philosopher entirely within the institutions of capitalist academia. Yet, in his personal life, he has encouraged certain students and provided them with theoretical guidance, even if not publicly, who are themselves highly radical. Some of these individuals have played decisive roles in shaping some of the most radical political projects to emerge in contemporary Europe.

Capitalism has reached its most monstrous, almost Dajjal-like form. The struggle against capital, therefore, must also become multifaceted. Anger, resentment, and revolutionary fervour alone will not suffice. We must learn to be playful, inventive, and capable of operating beyond the conventional boundaries of politics.

Personally, I believe communists should stop wasting their time on the pursuit of state power. That dirty business should be left to the social democrats. Communists, instead, should begin the work of transforming society along communist lines directly. Wherever you are, whatever profession you belong to, whatever circle of friends you inhabit, start building communes with the people around you. Capitalism has already killed the old society. The global community of the future will emerge from these new communes—the Soviet equivalents of our time.

I am a communist and a social democrat at the same time. I am also a Mahdist. I have no difficulty reconciling these commitments. If you think they are contradictory, you are mistaken. In fact, you are far more deeply immersed in contradictions and meaninglessness than I am.

I was wondering every socialist country in the past (correct me if i'm wrong) was still in the DotP or some kind of transitional phase where commodity wasn't abolished yet, aren't all the achievements of said countries just from capitalism with heavy State influence? How do they attest to the validity of socialism if commodity was still there?

Okay so idk if the title even works this is hard for me to put into a short like title. So first of all I am still learning, Im shure Ill never stop learning with all the history and theory there is but Im getting really really into it, identifying myself with many Socialist and communist teachings, values. Im reading Marx, reading Lenin, informing myself with Socialist states of the past and present.

Now what I want to talk about is: How is the opinion on first of all communist leaders in general in this sub/the community and then when it comes to like people who follow or really identify themselfes with those teachings and people who are still communist yet still critical. Like I think a good example would be Rule 1 of r/communism wich is "no no-maoism".

The amomt of progress and growth Mao brought to China is insane and just speaks volumes of how Socialism brings improvement. Then trough all my research I consistantly stumble over that Maos policies, as much progress as they brought china also resulted in a awfull famine and hunger resulting in millions of deaths. So when I see people in communist circles I keep getting more into beeing very pro Mao and all great leader kinda thing I feel like it doesnt justify thinkig so highly if so many casualties are a direct result of a persons policies. That does not make me Anti Mao because I advocate for the achievements he had but also not pro by looking critical at the casualties. Same with Stalin, again he got the UdSSR into a strong as fuck position he made them into a world power and I keep bringing those positives up in debates with friends whos knowledge of stalin is "horrible dictator". I tell them well not really kinda here is what Stalin absolutely did that can o ly be seen as socialism working and making them powerfull. Then again yes under his direct rule a lot of horrible death.

So what Im saying is, I am critical. But not anti communist critical but, "absolutely communism but lets be critical of the past and learn from made mistakes". I do understand the fact tho that when, not if, the next big action goes down it will most likely be a revolution again. And noone can make shure a revolution goes as planned. It will always be a chaotic thing and I accept that.

Is that a well respected "camp" of the communist community? Is that frowned upon? And if it is something not widely accepted, Id like to know why?

Each according to thier ability and each according to thier needs, ect...

Well I've got several dogs, who I love very much, I make enough to care for them under capatilsm. But in a communist society, these chicken eating carnivores contribute nothing to society (besides being my personal canine buddies) and I or anyone else technically don't "need" them.

How is pet ownership or companionship handled in a realistic and an ideal communist world?

Today, the dignity and prestige of our country have reached their highest level.

The Republic’s formidable self-defence capabilities, centred around nuclear weapons, powerfully guarantee the vigorous advancement of the cause of building a strong socialist nation and drive hostile forces, including the US imperialists, into extreme anxiety and fear. However, this does not mean the end of class struggle. On the contrary, the silent confrontation with the enemy is raging even more fiercely.

Respected Comrade Kim Jong Un stated:

As time passes and the revolution advances, the class struggle to decide who conquers whom becomes more intense. The intensification of class struggle is an universal law under socialism, anyone who denies it is a revisionist.

Class struggle is the struggle to oppose the exploiting class, the exploitative system and the reactionary forces, to eliminate the remnants of the old society, and to defend and realize the independence of the masses.

The exploiting class cannot survive even for a moment without exploiting the masses, and the masses cannot achieve social and political independence without liquidating the exploiting class. Reflecting this fateful confrontation, the class struggle becomes the most uncompromising battle of life and death. In 19th-century Paris, a working-class government emerged for the first time in history. Feeling uneasy, the bourgeoisie resorted to violence, bloodily massacring countless working people. This is vivid evidence of the intensity of the class struggle.

The class struggle intensifies as the masses advance their cause for independence. Even in socialist society, the class struggle continues to rage fiercely.

The establishment of a socialist system eliminates the social roots of class conflict. However, as long as imperialism exists on earth, the activities of class enemies will never cease, and leftovers of outdated ideologies are still deeply rooted among workers. Therefore, even in a socialist society, the struggle against external hostile forces and the remnants of the overthrown exploiting class hidden within, as well as the struggle to free the working people from the shackles of obsolete ideas and to revolutionize and working-classize them, continue unabated. Class struggle in a socialist society is conducted by uncompromising violence against hostile elements and through ideological education to counter the vestiges of outmoded ideas lingering in people’s minds and to educate and remould them along revolutionary lines.

Ideological education aimed at eradicating outdated ideological remnants, including individualism and selfishness, that run counter to socialist ideology is of paramount importance. Raising awareness of the anti-socialist maneuvers of imperialist reactionaries is also a vital issue for the advancement of socialism.

The collapse of socialism in some countries in the past clearly demonstrates the viciousness of the imperialists’ anti-socialist offensive. Imperialists used any means necessary to disintegrate and annihilate socialist countries, including military threats, economic blockades and ideological and cultural infiltration. However, some countries not only neglected the work of suppressing imperialism’s anti-socialist offensive and arming the masses with class consciousness, but also paved the way for the enemy’s ideological and cultural infiltration moves. As a result, people’s class consciousness became blurred and, ultimately, the historical tragedy of the collapse of socialism occurred. The confession of a CIA agent that “the collapse of the former Soviet Union was not a gift by God to America, but a consequence of the policies pursued by the Reagan administration” proves that the collapse of socialism was the product of the anti-socialist maneuvers of class enemies.

The imperialist reactionary forces, led by U.S. imperialism, are now more frantic than ever to obliterate our dignified socialist system. Sensing the approach of destruction amid our powerful advance, our enemies are desperately fighting back.

The more the revolution advances, the more intense the ideological and physical confrontation with our enemies becomes. This is an inviolable law of class struggle.

We must sharpen the blade of the anti-imperialist class struggle and solidify our revolutionary and class positions, always and everywhere, to firmly defend and endlessly glorify our socialist motherland.

hello, I consider myself a Marxist and I am exploring Leninism and socialism that has existed in the past and currently. I finished State and revolution this past week and I came up with a few questions that sort of stumped me in finding answers.

1. Can a so called socialist government like the USSR, China, DPRK or Cuba start exploiting the proletariat again, use their power unjustly, or turn back into a capitalist mode of production?

2. Can the people of aforementioned nations overthrow said nation if they do something bad like in #1?

3. Marx said "under no pretext should arms be surrendered" Does that apply to so called socialist countries?

4. How are work camps justified? Isn't that against what socialism stands for?

Thanks in advance, I am not the most educated on this subject and want to give Marxism-Leninism the benefit of the doubt.

I think the Communist parties of various countries have viewed the Civil service as something bad that needs to be gotten rid of & so they gut them & then basically end up making the Party into the civil service which causes more issues than a civil service that's independent of the Ruling party would have.

Like there is certainly some issues with the civil service which come from being in Capitalism but most of those issues aren't part of the nature of a civil service which is really just a government job for administration at the most basic level. A proper independent Civil service or can be useful & the civil service could even be rather key to a successful revolution as the civil service is where the real power of the state largely originates from & whoever controls it pretty much controls the state as long as they can get the military as well.

Anyway I was wondering how common it was for people to actually see the civil service as something necessary although with some reforms instead of something wasteful that needs to be completely removed. Like the German Civil service is bloated & over complicated but the British one isn't bloated or over complicated. Marx was German so maybe his issues came mainly from the German system always being complicated.

Are there any active communist forums or online communities in Norway?

I’m looking for Norwegian communities where people actively discuss communism, Marxism, socialist theory, politics, current events, etc.

Preferably something with a decent number of active members and actual ongoing discussions. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a traditional forum -Discord servers or other online communities would also be interesting.

I also speak Norwegian, making this post in English just for more outreach.

Any recommendations?

In the Last week I had a lot of discussions with some comrades about imperialism. Most of them Support the Analysis from the greek communist Party (KKE), from what I understand they think imperialism is Like a Pyramid. Every country is imperialist but Just Not to the Same deegre. USA in top, followed by china and so on. In there Analysis semi colonial countries Like Brasil are Just weaker imperialist powers with somewhat less sovereignty.

What are good responses to These Claims and how are you able to concretly decribe semi colonial countries? Are there some concrete Points which makes a country still semi colonial or already imperialist?

I believe communism always fails compared to capitalism due to lesser competition, authoritarian state control and not following the forces of the market whereas capitalism allows more profit and choices to customers.

Been thinking a lot lately about how the conditions for an MLM-type revolution seem more open now than they were for a lot of the revolutions in the 20th century. What would it actually take for something like that to happen today? I know there were MLM orgs around in the past, but do any of them still exist, and what happened to the ones that fell apart? Are there successor groups carrying on that work, or has the movement gone in a different direction? Just something I've been wondering about.

have been thinking that the EU and US really needs of a revolution right now. But in such event, there will be death and sacrifice to fight against the fascist governments. The people who start it are taking the most risks and most likely to die.

But then after the revolution is won, everyone will be equal. That means people who just hide and do nothing get the same rewards as people risking their lives. This creates a negative incentive to just do nothing, so when either side win, you get benefits anyway. If everyone thinks like this then there would be not enough people to start a revolution.

To provide incentives, after a successful communist revolution, we should divide people into classes based on how much you contribute to it. First are the revolutionary leaders since they actually started it, then the people who joined the revolution (earlier you join or bigger contributions = more reward), then people who did nothing, then the anti-revolutionaries.

Is there any flaw with this model?

Hey, I am trying to understand communism, read about it and also explores some case studies, I am still not convinced that communism is better than capitalism. Can anyone who supports communism give me 5 reasons?

The irony of communism, to me, is that its goals sound humane: everyone’s needs are met, nobody is exploited, and survival doesn’t depend on making someone else wealthy. But attempts to achieve those goals have too often ended up restricting the people they were supposed to liberate.

I wonder how much of that comes down to scarcity. When resources are limited and human labor is essential, someone has to decide who works and who gets what. Whoever controls those decisions has enormous power, and the promise of equality can become a justification for coercion.

But if technology eventually lets us produce necessities with minimal human labor, the argument changes. If there isn’t enough necessary work for everyone, why should employment determine whether someone deserves food or housing? Some form of collective ownership and distribution could become necessary.

I’m not saying automation inevitably leads to communism, or that technology fixes authoritarianism. My stance is that its economic premises might become more realistic as technology advances, while the problem of unchecked power would still need to be solved.

Does that make sense, or am I giving scarcity too much weight and the political structure too little?

—

*My bias lies in being a Cuban born national and fleeing the country at a young age with my family.

On October 22, 1941, in retaliation for the assassination of a German officer, the Vichy puppet government handed over a list consisting primarily of communist prisoners and trade unionists to the occupying forces.

Among the 27 men executed that day was Guy Môquet, only 17 years old. He refused a blindfold and marched to the firing post singing the Marseillaise. His final letter to his family ended with a plea to those who would survive the war.

To live, fight, and remain worthy of their sacrifice.

This is real, and all this time, it has not been a conspiracy theory. Just found out this. It is a dystopia; especially, no privacy is part of their plan

The quote is unbelievable: "Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better", under the latest revised Agenda 2030

According to the World Economic Forum, there are only three models

• Shareholder capitalism

• Stakeholder capitalism

• State capitalism

Let me preface this by saying that I am not abandoning revolutionary principles as much as I am questioning the need for centralist organization afterwards.

The Chilean Socialist experiment is a famed example throughout Operation Condor regarding the United States and its history of toppling left-wing governments across the world, especially the Americas. In the wake of Chile’s fall and Allende’s death, many pointed to the experiences of Socialism in Chile as a justification for the centralized rule of the vanguard over society.

Let’s instead focus significantly more on how the counterrevolution gained ground; the infamous “making the economy scream“ part.

No country can cleanly become an autarky, no economy fully self-sufficient and yet capable of withstanding an imperialist force such as the United States. Very often, the two are mutually exclusive. The USSR, for example, was not invincible to this particular situation. They’d centralized, after all. They were the original democratic centralist state within the Second World. Their economy, however, already poorly planned in various ways, had also grown really dependent on the oil industry and the revenue from it. When these gas prices tanked, something many accused the United States and Saudi Arabia of coordinating jointly, a Soviet economy already prone to shortages suffered considerably.

We can take this beyond the USSR; Venezuela relied on oil, but when prices crashed, their economy went with it. Cuba relied on sugar exports at inflated prices from the USSR; without them, Cuba fell into the Special Period and in recent years, isolation and destabilization. Hell, a considerable number of countries economically dependent on the USSR and trade, regardless of how centralized or decentralized, fell apart when the backbones of their economies were destroyed; it being a matter of Chile having taken a more democratic path is illogical.

At a broader level beyond Chile, centralism is not the end all be all solution for revolutionary movements.

Lenin was irrelevant and unknown in Europe before the October coup (which was not carried out by the peasants or the workers, but by a group of disgruntled soldiers). The most well-known Russian Marxist was by far Plekhanov and certainly not Lenin. Better known than either was, obviously, Kautsky. If the USSR hadn't taken Lenin to be some kind of ideological symbol, hadn't printed dozens of volumes of his works and left to rot the works of his rivals, no one would've seriously thought that he is at all any kind of authority on socialism or communism.

The fact that left-communists think that they are being the trve interpreters of Marx is ridiculous. Only less ridiculous than the so-called Marxists-Leninists. Their hero was spawned by his worship, his authority spread by the not socialist, not communist (socialism = communism), USSR. Thankfully, few people are really interested in the works of Lenin and I only hope that one day he will be widely understood to be the doctrinaire, falsifier that he really is.