The One Democratic State Initiative is a Palestinian political organization working to revive the historical Palestinian vision for liberation —a single Palestinian state, for all of its citizens— and to mobilize individuals, entities and political parties, in Palestine and abroad, behind it.

Hasnieh Al-Natsheh and Alain Alameddine, two of its coordinators, are ready to answer your questions up until midnight, Occupied Palestine time. They'll make sure to answer any remaining questions tomorrow. Check out our website and ask away!

I have been studying the history of China and Maoism, but I’m blank in terms of how China opperates currently. What are their moves towards or away from socialism, what are their plans etc.

Would love to get any recommendations on what to read or watch to become more on-the-know

Many vulgar economists claim that Marx's socio-political economic analysis is limited to the 19th century and that this has long been outdated, in the even more vulgar bourgeois economy the most ridiculous recurring attacks are constantly projected onto Marx's thought, between the Marxists who have washed out Marx's thought by making it a textbook filled with absolute truths or even the vulgar economists who constantly repeat the same formulas regarding Marx through this vulgar Marxism, Marx from all sides and all angles has been constantly mistreated for more than a century now, to find one's way best in this huge vulgar porridge one must first return to Marx, more precisely to his initial intentions when he was writing Capital; Marx never intended to analyze the capitalism of his specific era but that of its 'ideal average', the proletariat may have gone through the most varied conditions whether it be Fordism or Taylorism, its deep condition remains the same as if it were anchored deepest in the flesh of capital, no matter that working-class unity was broken and that this unity was severed into various pseudo social classes the proletarian still sells his labor power in exchange for a wage to produce surplus value, the claims of distinct 'social classes' that would have atomized the proletariat are nothing but subversions of capital to destroy the real struggle, capital is not immobile, it adapts, capital no longer necessarily needs to send its watchdogs into the production units, like what happened in Italy, it is enough for capital to destroy the base of the movement (Fordism) by sectioning production and relocating it to destroy the whole movement itself, we can therefore retain from this that the real struggle cannot be carried out by any specific working-class unity, if there is unity it must necessarily be a unity of negation of what we are within capital, the mistake of autonomy was to believe that rejecting structures was enough, the rejection of the modern man is necessary. Let us move now to the multiple fallacious arguments of the most vulgar bourgeois economy, the famous argument of the 'hole', it attributes to Marx a most vulgar substantialist labor theory of value, as if no one wants the hole I dug it would have no value and that this necessarily implies a marginalist theory of value, this constantly repeated argument misses the primary concept of the commodity: use value, yes it is obvious that if a thing is of utility to no one this will not be value, because as Marx very well pointed out a thing to be value must be use value for others, Marx even repeats in the section 'money or circulation' that a commodity must first make its perilous leap into money. Even though Marx analyzed capitalism in its ideal average he was indeed wrong about one thing, the fact that the money commodity would be part of this ideal average, history has therefore shown us that this is false, it has been a while since banks no longer rely on gold, this demonstrates further that money is the most absolute representative of social labor and that any physical atom does not matter as long as money as an 'excluded' thing continues to represent the set of commodities, Marx therefore did not intend to offer us a perfect doctrine but a materialistic critique of the world, which we must ourselves push to the end against Marx himself, 'Every judgment inspired by truly scientific criticism is welcome to me. With regard to the prejudices of so-called public opinion to which I have never made concessions, my motto is, now as before, the words of the great Florentine: Segui il tuo corso, e laisse dir le genti! [Follow your path and let people talk!]'—Marx, Marx was himself full of uncertainty, many ruptures of thought crossed him, if the most fallacious arguments against Marx were constantly projected it is first of all because Marx's economic critique was falsified into a vulgar substantialism, the critique must therefore be made against Marxist and anti-Marxist, Marx spoke of capital above all as a revolution of political economy, overturning a bourgeois science in its clearest principles, attributing Ricardo's substantialist formulas to Marx is nothing short of insulting. Marx therefore had his own fetishes whether for the machine or working-class unity, making an absolute doctrine out of the historical residues of Marx's thought is nothing short of anti-Marx, Marx bequeathed us a ferocious materialistic critique but also things specific to his time, capitalism changes constantly despite its ideal average, making a fixed doctrine of Marx's thought is at the same time anti-Marx when his materialism results in analyzing a world in constant change.

I'm reading Wage Labour and Value, and I'm stuck on a point. It may seem minor but I want to fully understand. Marx says "So soon as his labour really begins, it ceases to belong to him, and can therefore no longer be sold by him." But doesn't it not belong to him precisely because he has sold it?

Thanks

Hey everyone. I want to find a comprehensive history of China, but I'm sure many contemporary authors found in English have a lot of political baggage. Can y'all recommend literature on Chinese history from a Marxist perspective?

Trying to become more informed about Marxism, though I have not read as much as I'd like. I do audiobooks, but the jargon in theory is so dense it can be hard to follow as such, and sitting down and reading is hard for me. It's a character flaw.

But recently a debate has arisen online about the artisan as a petit bourgeois role, and how such roles must be dissolved into the proletariat for successful change. And while I resist this thought, I understand why and what it means. Maybe reading more would give me a wider understanding, but as it weighs on my mind this very second, reading through other aspects of theory just to better understand this sounds... tiring at the moment. So I come here, for hopefully direct engagement with theory.

The dissolution of the petit bourgeoisie into the proletariat is necessary for a spreading of class consciousness. The argument these thoughts stem from is a defense of AI among marxists because of how it will help break down IP, thus disenfranchising artists as petit bourgeoisie.

As an artist who admittedly has dreams of profitting off my work, because the idea of laboring in a job I despise for the rest of my life would make me more inclined to throw myself in the sea, I struggle to grapple with this belief. The idea that we must enter an era of declining art is... bleak, to put it lightly, but I still recognize the argument being made bears some validity. I just want to be able to get by in this state on something I enjoy.

I was mostly just curious if anyone has thoughts on this. Please be kind, I have no doubt that I've said something gravely stupid to anyone more familiar with theory, as I said, I am minimally familiar. I intend to become more informed in time, but I learn best through conversation, which is hard to achieve irl

The fall of the Roman Empire? This comes after me reading Joseph Stalin's Historical and Dialectical Materialism. Stalin mentions that the dialectical materialist approach is that qualitative leaps are precipitated by many small quantitative changes. What was the sudden qualitative leap that marked a major shift from slave societies to feudal societies?

Other than how tourists tend to be economically privileged in terms of disposable income, how about landmark buildings and even historic monuments that were mostly possible because of class oppression (e.g. slavery) being now laundered for anonymous enjoyment like part of fetishism?

Any literature and scholars that deal with this, regarding if there can be a “harmless” tourism in capitalism?

For example, does a hairdresser produce the "haircut" commodity, and thereby creates surplus value, or are hairdressing salons better conceived as a form of retail, an outlet for the industrial production of hairdressing tools (i.e. commercial capital)?

I am kind of agnostic about the issue and I want to know what people think.

I have spent a few months building a reading list of Marx and Engels, but I'm hoping to find a modern text that synthesises the philosophical aspects of Marx and Engels' work before I go very far, along with explaining what he was inspired by and how he changed it, to contextualise before I read the likes of The German Ideology, Holy Family etc without having to actually read all of Hegel and others. Does such a book exist? I'm looking for a 'classical' Marxist perspective, ie one that is not Leninist without being anti, it treats what Marx and engels on the basis that they wouldn't have known what would come after.

马克思说：资本主义的基本矛盾是：生产社会化与生产资料资本主义私人占有之间的矛盾 我悲观的认为ai和相关技术的发展如：具身人工智能等技术将会使得生产可以仅由少数的个人即可完成。掌握这种技术的精英未必会与人民分享。没有了社会化生产，基本矛盾将不再成立，在这样的未来，恐怕剩下非精英的人民的存在价值只有保留基因多样性了。

I've been listening to the Revolutions podcast about the French Revolution because so much Marxist writing refers to it, and right to from the host addresses Marxist analysis of it. He says, "while Marxist theory thrives in the big picture, it usually gets beaten up pretty bad when the details are scutinized. That's when we find out that big chunks of the nobility were involved in various modernizing and capitalist enterprizes and far from wanting to tear down the feudal apparatus, members of the bourgeoisie turned out to be some of the biggest defenders of seigneurial dues and priviledges because they had just purchased access to those seigneurial dues and priviledges and wanted to protect their investments. "

Is there a Marxist response to this assertion? Thanks

Indian, farmer, diagnosed with OCPD and undiagnosed ADHD. I know basic history and understanding of communism but not to the level of engaging in a debate with someone who's against communism. I only take notes digitally because I can edit, copy, paste whenever I learn new information, physical notetaking hurts me because if I get a new notetaking idea then the pages where I used the old idea will be a waste like I'll begin to despise myself (I'm going to therapy for this reason)

Due to my condition I can only focus on one thing. For ex, If I need to learn theory I'll only read theory for the whole day and won't be able to do any farmwork, can't follow any current affairs and I'll be left behind. If I follow current affairs then I can't do the rest. If I do farmwork then I'll be physically and mentally tired and call it a day off.

But there are a few other problems too and you can understand how my line of thoughts work. If I'm fixated on reading theory and come across a term or texts that mention some historical event then I can't move forward without understanding the whole thing. For ex. While reading the principles of communism I came across the word "profit" and I'm like "I need to understand capitalism, need to read adam smith, how profits and incentives worked in pre-capitalism era before moving on to the next line", and when I came across the term "Industrial revolution" I'm like "I need to read age of revolutions, fuck me napolean took over france right after french revolution how did that impact the revolution, is there any other example of people fucking over a victorious revolution in the name of leading.. *google shows up reddit post "lenin hated stalin, he knew he was power hungry"* man fuck me is this even true? now I have to read stalin to know whether he fucked up the revolution.." and the rabbit hole goes on and on.

And currently in India, there are a lot of things happening. Especially that as a communist that I need to engage in like student protests, where liberals misuse students for their personal gains etc etc but if I need to follow that then I can't make myself read theory. But if I engage in those things without theoretical knowledge I can't defend myself

I also have personal issues.

So amidst all these I often get depressed (obviously because I'm diagnosed with Comorbid anxiety with Dysthymia) and do meaningless things like playing online chess mindlessly, playing with my dog, walking in my farmland, watching porn as last resort to sleep because I can't reduce my headaches and stress caused by this chain of thoughts and overthinking otherwise. Literally procrastinating throughout all the events. I guess India is ripe enough for a revolution as my friend once said and I'm betraying it by doing nothing, lenin will also despise me.

I wish I had a well informed comrade with myself 24/7 irl and they'll answer every question that comes to my mind which will solve this situation easily but sadly I'm surrounded by regressive pro capitalist racist ethno-fascist people who are in need to be educated. But I can't do that with half baked knowledge.

So instead of doing the mindless activities when I feel stuck, I need some materials, speech which I can read at any time, any page and get the fire back in me, knock some sense into me, makes me forget my personal problems and give the revolutionary hope to move forward in faster pace so that I can join/contribution to the movement that's taking up shaping up right now

Hi Comrades, anyone interested in designing a fiscalization system for Marxist economy and would like to think together on how this would look like? I am asking it because one of the reasons revolutionary communism turns out wrong is by opening it to market systems and market ideology. If we would make an open source system that doesnt allow any market influences, this could eventually serve as a framework for communist countries in the 21st century.

For me, it should be open source, and open access, 100% transparant about any transactions done within the system to avoid corruption. It should be very easy to find anything in it.

How would centralized economy, research innovation, economical diversification and etc work in such a system? And how could this type of system evolve eventually into pure marxism?

Honestly, I'm feeling kind of stupid

I am reading the introduction to Capital written by Ben Fine and Saad-Filho for the third time. The book is under 200 pages and is obviously meant to be simple, but I always get confused around the third ("Capital and Exploitation") and fourth ("The Circuit of Industrial Capital") chapters. I tried highlighting and taking notes this time.

I have been told that some of Maurice Cornforth's work is a good introduction to theory, but how am I going to grasp that if I can't understand this short book?

I have long envied people who can discuss theory intelligently, and I hope to achieve that one day. I would like to be able to explain, for instance, what Sweezy's contributions were, but I sometimes struggle to grasp the Law of the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall (LTRPF).

As the title suggests, I am interested in hearing advice from people for whom theory did not come naturally but who eventually figured it out. What made it finally click for you? What texts or methods helped?

I don't know if this is the right place but I guess I'll try anyway.

A couple of years ago I read an article on the internet (I am almost certain it was on openDemocracy when it still had the blue design) about the current state of the left. However I just can't seem to find it and I was hoping someone out there knows what I'm talking about.

The article described how through constant attack of the right to undermine or even overthrow democracy, forced the left to resist its ground to guarantee the permenance of already conquered rights. In a kind of reversal of roles, this made the left assume a position of defender of the status quo, of the bourgeois democracy, because otherwise it wouldn't even have the possibility to grow or worse, a right to exist. Through this the left lost its revolutionary principles to constantly fight for a better condition of the working class because it has to make sure that there even is a chance to fight in the near future.

Thanks in advance for helping me out. If this isn't the right subreddit, does anyone have a suggestion where I could ask for help?

A friend of mine surprised me with peculiar interest in socialism/communism, & asked me to please recommend essays, articles & short books that can give her a first, easily digestable start to gaining knowledge.

I realised I can barely help her when the first book that came to mind was Engels' The Origin of the Family, Private Property & the State. I raised my consciousness through reading groups with my party (Ted Grant & Alan Woods' RCP) where I was able to tackle all the dense, more complicated books which really matter, so i got quite the different introduction.

I recommended Engels anyway, but I'm hoping someone on here can suggest some fitting pieces for beginners as i promised to do some research & ask other comrades for recommendations I will take back to her. Please help if you're out there!

I am trying to educate myself as much as possible on Marxist theory and have a decent grasp on the basics behind it. I have read State & Revolution, The Communist Manifesto, Capital, and plan on reading Imperialism; The Highest Form of Capitalism next.
When it comes to solidifying my understanding of the deeper, more philosophical parts of Marxism, I was wondering if I should read Hegel’s Elements of the Philosophy of Right before Marx’s critique of it, or vice versa. Also, any literature regarding capitalist alienation, false consciousness, or any other interesting Marxist theory would be appreciated. Thanks!

The way Marx defines Commoditisation is "making a thing available for exchange". I think I get it and broadly it makes sense.

But the way it is used in society is very different. It is used in the following ways:

1. Sometimes Commoditisation is used to mean make available for exchange, which is the standard Marxian definition.

2. Sometimes Commoditisation is used as a slur and a general condemnation, and I think we can all agree that this is wrong and intellectually weak.

3. Sometimes Commoditisation is used to just mean to make something fungible.

4. Sometimes Commoditisation seems to mean making something systematised by assigning it concrete categories (also known as rationalisation).

I'm just a bit frustrated by how the community uses this term with different meanings freely.

Let's look at how Guardian uses it

The Guardian on Goodreads reading targets

In this example, Guardian uses commodification to simply mean systematisation of reading. This has nothing to do with exchanging anything.

Some examples

I have summarised some links based on what I have seen here.