Hello everyone. I am hailing from the kerala state of india, a red bastion of Communist party of India(Marxist)/CPIM. I've been born into a party family where i got the exposure to this beautiful ideology from childhood itself.I was impressed by the historical struggles of the Communists from the time of independence till today.

As i said, i learned about communism more through my experience and history. Even though i knew that there are core theories of marx and Engels, party/party workers of my area never took the initiative to at least read those.

Recently i got introduced to Marx's LTV and it's quite good. There were discussions along the social media on this and i decided to learn the basics and learned it. I would like to learn more. But there are some doubts on this

1) what was the end? Like.. Did we win at the end. Mainly there are two theories, labour and utility. I saw so many research papers on support of LTV(anwar sheiks) and critics for it too.where did that end? Is the discussion still going in the economic world?

2)what are the legit criticisms against LTV? All those criticisms i saw on youtube came out of the misunderstanding of the theory(confusing value with price,definition of commodity, mudpies). But what are the legitimate criticisms against it? Or are you saying that LTV at its own essence is near perfect?

Thankyou

Im gonna be direct and to the point. Google is massacring the forests in my home country of Finland. Im a marxist who is looking to utilize this as an opportunity to organize and radicalize people. I have a few comerades ready to help me, not a lot but its a start. Weve been balling around ideas, but were not sure and quite inexperienced. Any help counts, thank you :).

question about voting power in marxism, i know in the soviet union the urban workers had 1 representative per 25k inhabitants, and then the farmers had 1 representative per 125k, but, the concept that workers have 3x the vote for for ex a banker.

Alguém arrisca especular sobre os ultimos acontecimentos e os possíveis desdobramentos?

Ouço diferentes "analistas" afirmarem que a Europa não terá condições de se recuperar, tanto de um suposto ou real enfraquecimento de suas relações coloniais, quanto de sua perda de protagonismo na determinação dos preços e das relações de mercado.

As manifestações na França foram massivas, e há greves gerais marcadas por toda a Europa. Nenhuma, imagino, chegará perto de ser o que foi maio de 1968. Por isso, considero tanto a possibilidade de ocorrerem revoluções de caráter socialista/anarquista, ou seja, revoluções que dinamitem a grande propriedade.

Grupelhos fascistas também saíram às ruas, mas nada minimamente perto do que foram os protestos. Não consigo imaginar qual seria a força popular real dos fascistas do continente. No limiar, alguém enxerga a possibilidade de um crescimento expressivo de organizações comunistas?

“Let us fight the enemy: with arms and ideas. Forward towards liberation and socialism”

I’ve been studying the PFLP and their history. There’s actually a wealth of information out there, it’s just not organized into a cohesive database. They began as a nationalist movement and later adopted a Marxist-Leninist political doctrine. They engaged in multiple high-profile plane hijackings in the late 60’s-70’s.

Since 2023 they have been fighting to repel the Zionist invasion of their land along with fighters from Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and others.

I’m an Italian guy, and I’ve been watching my country’s economy and society for years. From what I read, liberals think Italy hasn’t done enough neoliberal reforms. They say public spending is too high and should be cut, and that the bureaucracy is too slow. The "left", on the other hand, says that governments have privatized too many public services. They think this is especially clear in the poor state of schools and healthcare.

So, I wanted to ask you how a Marxist would interpret this situation—not least because I am worried about my country. The cost of living shows no signs of decreasing, and the people currently protesting are being silenced.

Thank you in advance.

Interviewer: Why won’t your organization engage in peace talks with the Israelis?

Kanafani: You don’t mean exactly peace talks. You mean capitulation. Surrendering.

Interviewer: Why not just talk?

Kanafani: Talk to whom?

Interviewer: Talk to the Israeli leaders.

Kanafani: That’s kind of conversation between the sword and the neck you mean.

Interviewer: Well if there are no swords and no guns in the room you could still talk.

Kanafani: No I hadn’t been. I have never seen any talk between a colonialist case and a national liberation movement.

Interviewer: But despite this, why not talk?

Kanafani: Talk about what?

Interviewer: Talk about the possibility of not fighting.

Kanafani: Not fighting for what?

Interviewer: Not fighting at all, no matter what for

Kanafani: Yeah people usually fight for something. And they stop fighting for something.

He compares negotiating with Israel to introducing “the sword to the neck.” 60 years later and nothing has changed. Still the imperial, colonial nations of the US and Israel bomb without reprise, and even peace negotiations are just excuses to underhandedly attack the enemy. Iran is a microcosm of how US foreign policy has been handled for decades.

Israel and its imperialist handlers don’t seek peace. They seek endless war, unbridled capitalism, a thriving military industrial complex, and the subjugation of the poor and working class around the globe.

It seems now more then ever these words have been adulterated to many a plethora of things. Some view the left wing as anti capitalist, some view it as any position remotely progressive. Socialism by many is seen as lower phase communism some view it as progress towards lower phase communism and the establishment of workers state, some view it was literally any sort of welfare/social democracy. I generally think that trying to categorize ideology on the standard brainrot 2 axis political compass will always been extremely inaccurate. In no way can one try and compare communism to neo liberalism on that type of graph considering one lives within the realm of capital and one lives outside of it. Meanwhile socialism has genuinely so many different meanings that trying to use it in a place of debate or conversation is nigh-useless. Socialism for quite a while was used synonymously with communism for decades before Lenin essentially separated the two and then changed his own definitions. Then Stalin did the same thing and we've kinda ended up at a point where socialism has not only little meaning outside of anti capitalist circles but also within. Overall I think "left" and "socialism" have gained a sense of ambiguity in there definition that can be used to neuter actual working class movements and anti-capitalist ideology.

Let me know your thoughts tho
(repost cause my shit got nuked for puttin an emoji in a edit message)

All art is not political in the sense that say drawing a picture of an apple is political because if politics didn't do some things for environmental measures, then no apples would exist. Art is, however, derived from realities influenced by base and superstructure. Said base has been influenced by the political portion of the superstructure, but to what extent is up for debate. Returning to my first point, for example, an art piece against the current leader of a nation has a political intention in mind, but the politics had to be derived from the current superstructure(with an added backdrop that if you didnt dislike your current conditions you wouldnt be doing this. You also may not be doing this if you didnt fear what would happen to your current reality.), and if its an economic critique the base is more directly needed. In a scenario where a national bans say, jazz. Doing jazz is socially a political statement, but is still derived from current realities created from the base and superstructure(I do want to mention that doing jazz still was a personal decision. You have agency). Art is always merely a reflection of material realities. Even when imagining something in the future or which doesn't exist, as Descartes noted in Meditation I, you must always derive your thoughts(Descartes would've said dreams, but are dreams not merely the thoughts of the unconscious? Pardonnez-moi, Revenons à nos moutons) from existence. For example, again taking from the great Descartes, think of a new animal. It has things from animals you know, for example a griffin, minotaur, mermaid, hecatoncheires, demon, angel. Even if you try without that and somehow do it, it has remnants of things which exist in the material reality such as shapes or hair or fur or even that it has a living and a dying stage of its life or that if it stops living it is dead in the sense of death being not living after you have lived. That material reality is influenced by the base+superstructure. The imagination of a future society or alternate society always shall be a reflection of your realities and the imagined realities in your fiction too. The superstructure always has its place, it's a major influencer, economic realities are not alone. But all art is not some idealist thought of ‘political’

I like to call my self a Marxist I read Marx and have a basic understanding of his theory, but I feel like unless it's about class conflict between the capitalist class and the workers I never analyze thing through a Marxist frame work. So what does it look like and mean to analyze things through a Dialectical-Materialist lens?

Either way it’s the best time to radicalize the people especially the youth so it should be happening. I also feel like Macron knows the class character of the protest and that’s why he’s blaming it on Melenchon.

For context I want to educate myself on theory and I just finished the Communist Manifesto and found it so interesting for a 70-page book. I would like to read Das Kapital but I’ve heard that it’s too heavy on economic theory to start with, so if you got any intermediates between them two to continue, or if you could share your experience with these I’d be grateful.
Have a great day !

Hey ya'll, I'm new to this subreddit but I was wondering if anyone had any good books or sources to recommend to learn about liberation movements in specifically the Bengal region or modern-day Bangladesh and the West Bengal region of India from a Marxist or generally left-politics lens.

I would also appreciate just being given advice on where to look for good historical sources on this in general if anyone has any.

This is for a project I'm doing but also I am Bengali American and it shames me that I do not know nearly enough about the country or the region my parents are from. So I am trying my best to learn.

this is my first time posting here and I'm probably not even on the right subreddit but imo things are getting so dire there is a massive need for a revolution. like people EVERYWHERE need to start going against their governments and the upper class because this shit is getting insane. we've got pedophiles and fascists as world leaders , tech bros coming up with new and improved ways to destroy human creativity and evolution as we know it, just generally SO much going on. I am of the firm belief that when threats of this nature appear, humanity can overcome them, but that can only be done by taking action. we need more high stakes protests, we need our voices to be heard. I'm still young so I may not know what I'm talking about, but this is not the future I was promised. i don't want to live the rest of my life in misery because of a few scumbags high up.

Are there any books from Marxists that talk about ethics and what is right and wrong? How do we as Marxists know what we're doing is good, or do we just follow the idea ends justify the means?

Source for the second image : https://archive.org/details/resolutionsthese00commiala/page/16/mode/2up

For those unaware, the Rand Revolt was a failed revolt by the South African Communist Party and Labour Party against the South African government. Typified by the slogan "Workers of the World, Fight and Unite for a White South Africa", the revolution was inherently white supremacist in it's rhetoric and actions.

So why doesn't the Communist International separate themselves from the movement? Are they hypocrites merely trying to push a political agenda?

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.

In light of the protests in France, i wonder what is the opinion on looting.

I support the protests, including the violence, i just dont understand how looting a jewelry or clothing store (not a multinational corporation, just a local business) will help the working class fight the bourgoisie or the state. Its also important to note that this looting is not done for any revolutionary goal and seems to just be a very oportunistic and childish way of protesting or getting some money.

I might be wrong though so i want to know what are some perspectives on this.

I am conflicted when looking at and dealing with people in my country who are genuinely suffering from economic and systematic oppression, the people are generally anti imperialist and are aware of the fact that their country is dominated by foreign powers and interests but they mainly analyze their plight from a religious perspective and have very conservative views on gender and sexual freedoms. They have a lot of revolutionary potential but they are very likely to not align with the revolutions view on cultural issues so how can Marxists deal with that problem without causing a schism during the revolution or not having the ability to accumulate enough numbers for a successful revolution to begin with.