DO NOT MAKE A POST ABOUT BEING BANNED FROM SOME OTHER SUBREDDIT

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I know I probably sound insanely dumb asking this, but I’ve never done proper research on this and don’t really understand the concept tbh. Explain like I’m 5 please.

Without an authoritative power, who would abolish the state and all its systems and institutions? Who would be taking from the rich, giving to the poor, distributing goods and wealth?

And if you say “the people govern” or that it’s a slow process or something like that, how would you prevent an authoritarian takeover in the process? Or how is “the people are the state” better than a proper democratic system?

Without a state police, how would you punish/stop criminal activity? I understand a lot of criminal activity stems from economic disparities, but it’s not like things like xenophobia, bigotry and religion would suddenly seize to exist. Who would intervene in the event of terrorism or another state attempting to conquer/take over if there’s no government, no military?

How would you keep society from turning illiterate with no taxes, no money, no systems in place to organize schools, hospitals, to oversee that kids are going to school, that people are there to teach and that they’re teaching the right things? Where would resources come from as no other country would continue to import and there would be no big rich companies to produce and distribute things like medicine and technology?

I understand that no proper ideal communist state has ever been achieved and most “communist” system or actually closer to dictatorships and rely heavily on capitalism and state control, so I’m confused how people still see it as an ideal.

Thanks!

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.

In The Communist Manifesto and Marxist theory as I understand it capitalists create the conditions to destroy themselves by forming a working class which through class consciousness can effectively become aware of its own interests and act in its mutual interests against the bourgeoisie by socializing the means of production. Because the working class actually controls production it has leverage that it could use through things like striking and great strike which Sorel argued for.

What I am seeing right now is that the working class has been thoroughly outmaneuvered and that power is actually in the hands of the bourgeoisie. This is from a Western perspective. First,take a look at what wealthy corporations have done. They have outsourced to countries with poor labor conditions and law protections. This reduces the power and influence of workers and unions in Developed nations manufacturing and factory roles because corporations are no longer reliant on them. Thus, they have to compete not only with other workers but also with people corporations bring in cheap labor with lower standards for care and payment. (not that they are bad people for pursuing their own intrests)

Next, there is also AI. AI is a great thing for corporations and the bourgeoisie because it allows them to replace workers along with all their benefits and pay with machines that they do not have to give any payroll or concern to. Actually it allows the Buergoise to control more of the means of production as AI industries and outsourcing commence. The Western working class, or the working class in the developed world is getting less and less power and less control over the means of production.

Could this mean that even if the working class were to make a general strike we have been outmaneuvered and have no leverage because of AI outsourcing and the destruction of our unions? In this way is communist theory now outdated in the modern age? Should we put into doubt marxism statement of worker power? How would we actually revolt without our levrage. If corporations suceed in devloping a general intellgence then it will be the buergoeise who own and controll the means of production and everyone else will become debt slaves.

In other words not only does a strike have to happen in the developed world but also in the exploited developing countries her to be successful if a strike were to happen tomorrow would it actually have any effect.

Im uneducated, I know communism on theory and without acknowledging the right wing propaganda I just dont understand it, how and why would it even work, so please educate me cause all I can find is contradictory and most communist I talked to are biased and treat their ideology as if they were kpop fans.

What is the principles, objective and procedure of communism and why is it better than for example a social democracy.

I saw this in several places

"Joseph Stalin sent many assasin to kill Josip broz Tito. Then Tito send a letter to stalin threatening " Stop sending people to kill me. We've already captured five of them, one of them with a bomb and another with a rifle… If you don't stop sending killers, I'll send one to Moscow, and I won't have to send a second." And then stalin didn't sent anyone again

Is this really happened or some false propaganda?

Do you have any books—whether on communism or other topics—that you’d recommend? I’m French, but I find that books like *Capital* and so on are pretty vague when it comes to what happens after the revolution and how to establish a state that isn’t authoritarian like Stalin’s. A more contemporary book

You perceive social instability, so you call for a protest, and notify the government. The authorities send in a few undercover cop. The press then reports that it was, inevitably, a riot incited by looters. Rinse and repeat

I've had this thought recently that if a communist (specifically an ml) revolution was to happen, why should i as a non-ml communist fight for it if ml countries have a history of elimanating non-mls?

I'm gonna talk here about what happens in Europe (since I am an east european) when it comes to public symbols regarding these two regimes/ideologies. And what I noticed is that the West of the Europe is very pro radical left, and they display communist symbols freely everywhere (as they should be since we live in democracies). But as we all know the communist regimes all around the world are guilty for serious crimes against humanity. So why isn't the communist symbol forbidden just as the nazy ones? What do u think, should they be?