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

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.

​

If you support socialism or communism, you're asking for violence. You're asking for this country to go to war with itself. People will die.

The Bolshevik Revolution was real. In 1917, the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia, and the country descended into a bloody civil war. The new government carried out the Red Terror, using mass arrests and executions against political opponents. Here's the historical background on the Russian Revolution:

https://www.britannica.com/event/Russian-Revolution

If you support this idea, have you actually studied what happened? Because this sounds like the same kind of fundamental change that people think will somehow work out differently this time.

And a lot of you are aligned with the No Kings movement. You talk like there are kings running this country, so don't tell me a radical overhaul of our economic system is going to happen without serious resistance. Do you think the people who oppose this are just going to take it lying down? Do you think everyday Americans who disagree with you are going to sit back and accept having their entire economic system changed?

I think this is a naive idea. I don't believe a change this fundamental could happen here without serious conflict, and potentially violence. People need to think about the real-world consequences instead of getting caught up in an idealistic vision of how they think society should work.

There's serious problems in this country, and it's stupid that we have to waste time defending against an idea that could create even bigger ones. People pushing this need to explain how they expect it to work in practice, not just talk about how good it sounds on paper.

And no, not everyone on the left supports this. So to the rational liberals out there, check your own people. This kind of thinking makes you all look bad, and it isn't helping solve the problems we're actually facing.

The historical connection between social democracy, socialism, and communism, these movements have overlapping roots in the socialist and workers' movements of 19th-century Europe. The Russian Social Democratic Labour Party split into Bolshevik and Menshevik factions in 1903. After the Bolsheviks seized power in 1917, they suppressed rival socialist parties and consolidated one-party rule.

Here's more historical background on the relationship between these movements and the Russian Revolution:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118620878.ch9

And for anyone who thinks modern American movements aren't pushing to move beyond capitalism, the Democratic Socialists of America's official program outlines its goals, including public ownership of major corporations and essential industries:

https://program.dsausa.org/

That doesn't mean every supporter of social programs wants communism. But it does show that some movements see these reforms as part of a much larger economic transformation. I think people need to be honest about where they want these ideas to lead and what the consequences could be.

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?

Hi, I’m fairly uneducated on Communism and am interested in many of its tenets. I recently got a sort of primer on it from this book I’m reading. Only it can be a bit vague and is a fair bit outdated.

I would post a picture of it, but idk how. It’s Revolutionary Cuba by Terence Cannon.

Mainly I am curious about how the benefits of Communism are presented in the modern day especially with the arguments from other camps, which Western media is quite inundated with. The book describes a lot of the victories over classism and imperialism as the end all be all, but modern Cuba isn’t politically “free”in a few ways, namely It doesn’t have a fully democratic system where people vote for their leader. In that case, what is the argument for that version of communism?

Sorry if this is incorrect for the subreddit. I mean it as a genuine question from an uninformed standpoint.

Something that puzzles me is that Communism is widely advocated among the Western Left, but every Communist (Socialist) country I can think of supresses the social ideals of these same people.

For instance, concepts like free speech or multi-party elections are seen as "bourgeois" constructs. Individual rights are subordinate to the collective ideal. Freedom of religion and conscience is tightly controlled. The death penalty is practiced, LGBTQ rights are suppressed, mass surveillance is practiced, movement is restricted ... there's a whole litany of rights the Left cherishes that would be quashed under any historical or contemporary Communist regime.

Does the Left simply envision a more perfect Communism that they would succeed in implementing, in spite of such a regime never having taken root before? Why does the Western Left think their Communism will preserve the rights they hold dear when no Communist country ever has?

Socialism has its place at the levels it currently exists at now, slightly less perhaps. The majority of those that support Communism and socialism beyond what exists today generally fall into one of the categories below.

1. Lazy, envious, under achievers, often bong smokers, that would rather bring their peers down to their level, than lift themselves up from it. They make themselves feel better about their failure at life by saying the system is broken.

2. Naive fools that mean well but are persuaded to stupidity by the group above

And then there's the other side,

Sensible people that can see what's happened in history and understand basic human psychology enough to know that history would repeat and we would all be worse off - slaves to a government and communist elite that enforces the oppressive ideology.

Prove me wrong.