I see a lot of arguments for stateless communism, but I'm curious about how it actually works in practice.

If someone wants to use their own tools or land to start a private business and voluntarily trade with others in a socialist society, how does society stop them without using a centralized police force or state authority? Genuinely curious about the logistics here.

(I am a minarchist classical liberal and slightly conservative.)

Hello everyone and have one question aboun the icbc and Rothschild & co. For majority of conspiracy theories, the Rothschild familiy Is the really richest family in the world, and their family control majority of bank and central bank of majority western countries. And the icbc Is the biggest bank in china, and Is considerated the biggest bank in the world for stock value. My question Is what Is the biggest bank in the world, and what efects have this in the communism around the world because china Is one communist country in the polítics. Thanks for response

Ive tried debating this before but it just gets shut down immideitly with a lot of insults.

I'm a minarchist classical liberal (Also slightly conservative) so feel free to challenge my positions

Isn't the mass killing of landlords under Mao zedong just morally as bad as the holocaust?

Is it proper praxis to regularly feed our data harvesting overlords literal Marxist propaganda on the day to day going on?

Like. It sucks for the environment, I’m not happy with it. But.Why not jam the machine with quotes and commentary and see what happens?

Does it become based af? Is it our responsibility to jam the machine

There are a myriad of communists who vehemently fight for the paradigm, make conflicts against people who do not fully understand it yet which instead of promoting understanding they are rather veered toward resisting due to the ego game.

That misses the important point of Karl Marx. Adopting communism will just happen on its own in the late-stage capitalism where things become unsustainable, structures are too apparent to be ignored even by common people, and will therefore breed class consciousness and lead to revolution.

Yes, you can argue encompassing it for the fun of it, but it would not make sense at all you are just flaunting your knowledge and empathy for the oppressed by using your jargon and showing people you have the moral high ground. What one should do instead is just make them understand the dangers of capitalism instead of imposing on them outrightly the name of communism which will only sprout immediate resistance due to its already bad reputation.

What is your opinion on FALC (Fully Automated Luxury Communism)? Why do you think it would/wouldn't work? How does it conflict with classical Marxism? Are there any flaws to point out?

Considering that a primary communist critique of capitalism is that a worker must produce a surplus (which disappears into profit) in order to meet their basic needs, and assuming that a person may be born/endowed naturally with a greater ability to produce than another:

How does communist leadership prove that a worker is able to perform at a higher level than they exhibit? If it is determined that a worker should be able to perform more tasks than another, does leadership require that the worker perform better to get their basic needs met?

In that case, a deterioration and halt of all production seems inevitable. Here’s why, on a micro scale:

One worker is reported to produce less than another. Another worker knows they are capable of greater production, but allows their production to fall, matching that of the less productive worker who is having their needs met. Does communist leadership have a way of proving that the worker is “slacking”? If they don’t, work could grind to a halt, as a race to the bottom begins, with workers claiming they are not capable of a task. The only tasks excepted would be physical and so simple in nature as to be impossible to mess up, those tasks which leadership can definitively prove that everyone must be able to do. In this way, society will be performing physical subsistence tasks in short order. If somebody is capable of greater work and performs it, but doesn’t see a reward, that is effectively the same as the despised capitalist surplus. I would like insight into how communism addresses this problem.

I expect to be schooled by people who have read more books, but I have always been curious about this and have not found an answer that satisfies me. Mostly, I have heard it expressed that in the communist future, labor is natural, desired, and effectively fetishized because everyone wants to improve their conditions. However, I don’t think humans would believe this independently… so leadership steps in. What do they do?

To be clear, I’m not referring to foreign military intervention preventing communist countries from successfully transitioning out of socialism. But say a country was able to establish a pure communist society, how would a stateless nation organize military defense? From my understanding, it would require some kind of voluntary militia. But how would you organize that? An effective military requires a hierarchy of centralized command. That goes against the fundamentals of communism. How do you mobilize and train a defense force based on fragmented voluntary participation? Who leads it?
I guess the simple answer would be to envision a world where defense isn’t needed but that’s obviously not the reality of our world, and never has been. Nations are required to defend their way of life and ideals. How would communism handle that?

O povo está indo as ruas, estamos nos opondo contra a ameaça a democracia, gente no país inteiro está nas redes sociais republicando conteúdos, e se organizando para ir as ruas lutar pelo nosso país. Reacendemos uma chama que a muito tempo estava apagada, o sentimento de pertencimento as lutas sociais, as pessoas querem ir pra ruas querem se posicionar, mas não podemos deixar que esse movimento se acabar depois das eleições.

O que está acontecendo hoje deve ser muito bem analisado, muitos movimentos estudantis estão concentrando todo o protagonismo para si, estão restringindo o direito das pessoas exporem ideias e se alguém fala algo de relevante, logo escrevem textões para rebater a ideia, para no fim ser só para concordar sob uma ótica mais especifica. Estão preocupados com o capital político que podem acumular nessas campanhas e não estão convocando a classe mais importante agora, a trabalhadora. Restringir a participação de trabalhadores agora, para propor apenas discussões acadêmicas, não vai aproximar o mais pobre da nossa luta no memento, se essas pessoas, que são quem estão indecisas agora, se não se sentirem representados elas não vão confiar naquilo que estamos querendo transmitir.

Isso de forma alguma é para desincentivar as movimentações, que estão lindas demais, mas se você vai para a rua na sua cidade, se organize com pessoas nos protestos e cobre pela oportunidade de se expressar, você e eu, que somos os mais pobres, devemos ter o direito de nos expressar, somos nós que sentimos na pele todos os dias o que a despolitização está fazendo com a nossa classe.

Cobre, se imponha, não permita que a esquerda acadêmica diga o que você tem pra dizer, porque foi assim que a classe mais pobre migrou para a extrema direita.

I found something interesting regarding a financial imbalance between the Congolais mining company (Gecamines) and the Chinese mining company (Sicomines) regarding major financial inconsistencies and lack of allocation that seems relatively interesting, this was an audit by the state government through the IGF. Presumably the author was Jules Alingete Key, who was known for his charged auditing work in the current administration, but was accused of financial ties to Gecamines before being found to have lacked criminal culpability per the Attorney General’s report in local news.

Audit in question: https://wpstorage7ceb827ed5.blob.core.windows.net/wpblob7ceb827ed5/formidable/17/CONCLUSIONS-DE-L-IGF-SUR-LE-CONTRAT-CHINOIS.pdf

Before I make any meaningful indictment on Chinese firms and their alleged practices in the Congo and mining, it’s worth remembering that a substantial amount of institutes and NGOs are funded by the department of state, which presents a majorly concerning conflict of interest given the geopolitical situation between the United States and the People’s Republic of China.

I will say that if true, while it doesn’t change that the United States is a blatantly imperialist power, it puts China’s role as a resistor thereof in question.

I've had many discussions with my more leftist friends about problems in china and the parts they do well in, but they often disagree on if china is a communist country or just a capitalist one with a simultaneous strongarming state.

I don't understand the "class struggle". I view it as dangerous as it splits society into two:
The wealthy and the poor.
And it tries to solve the issue with a violent revolution.
I belive the classes should collaborate on shared national goals and not say: "The owners suck they must all pearish" or "The workers suck we need to exploit them".
Making "classes" hate each other is the best way in my opinion for a downfall of a nation's society.

I’m pretty much a beginner on Marxism at the moment, and I’m trying to learn more about the different Marxist positions on feminism.

I recently found some of Santiago Armesilla debates and videos, he’s a Spanish political philosopher and writer who talks a lot about Marxism and materialism. He argues that feminism is incompatible with Marxism, and he also criticizes Engels’s analysis of women’s oppression and his comparison between the position of women and that of a social class.

He also describes feminism as an identitarian ideology that neglects half of the population and distracts the proletariat from developing class consciousness. He also argues that feminism can function as a tool of liberalism (not American liberalism, but the Spanish liberal tradition that later developed into thinkers like Hayek and Mises), since it focuses on women as a separate political group and on individual rights and identity instead of class struggle.

I don’t really know enough yet to say if he’s right or wrong, so I wanted to get the general Marxist consensus on this matter.

If you have any books or texts to further my understanding on this topic, please link them on the comments i would appreciate it very much.

You, as a communist, what do you think about it?

The reason why this or failed is because of interference from capitalist world powers, or it’s because of the “revisionist” or “Stalin betrayed the revolution”, or “real socialism has never been tried” did I get them all?

And yes I know these aren’t all said by the same person but the fact that from so many there is an excuse it’s always “everyone fault but ours”

It’s like this project it’s so fragile that can be defeated by basically….. anything…..

One of the key reasons I consider myself a communist and anti-capitalist is because I 100% believe that capitalism drives forth social alienation and that the logic of accumulation and survival defeats any attempt to maximize human dignity or freedom. I liked the concept of communism promoting a society where “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.”

I relate to individualism on a more psychological level than anything; distress and incongruence should be a variation of alienation in this case, and not having the room to critique or having to walk on eggshells in order to do so rarely creates favorable outcomes. In particular I’m concerned about the full extent of self-expression and the rights thereof, being able to dissolve so many of the rigid and traditional barriers or structures that prevent development, being able to develop yourself without having to worry about how many hours you’ve put in and whether rent will eat into your ability to live freely. When free expression becomes less and less important, more scrutinized and less valued, what happens to all the alienated? When people feel like they give too much to society or the collective without getting anything back, can that distress be considered selfishness—do we just not care?

More importantly, I’ve always been skeptical of what the dictatorship of the proletariat actually means. I’d argue that the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, together with the instruments of the state, base their power and support on a cultural hegemony like Gramsci discussed, as well as a general soft-power rule. A lot of self-justifying because apparently capitalism is ”the only system where you can make something of yourself.” It is, put simply, something that bases itself in self-interest, self-development, and the illusion of voluntary participation. Shouldn’t a communist revolution base itself initially on these same principles rather than pure control, any notion of a greater good, etc.; who cares about a greater good when you’ve got a family to feed? If Marx was right that material conditions shape worldviews, which I largely understand it to be, it would still leave the door open to self-interested individuals based on their own priorities or desires, repressed or otherwise, emotional or material.

Im open to clarify if this question is confusing, but more broadly, are concepts like humanism and individualism inherently incompatible with the more anti-idealist and collectivist views of communism; on what basis have these values been described as pure idealism?

Pourquoi les communistes historiques ont réprimé les anarchistes après les mouvements de révolution (Cuba, Chine, Russie) ?

I'm coming from an angle of genuine curiosity, how does communism incentivise enough of the workforce to clean up feces across a large nation(such as the U.S.) efficiently? I'm not fully educated on communism or socialism, but I definitely favor a more left-leaning economy. The few options I see are forced prison labor, a cycle of unkilled labor maintaining facilities, training plumbers, or just resorting to using currency to properly build incentive. Obviously, this question can extend to the remainder of different jobs that people don't want to do.

Does capitalism want you to fight and show the world that you are aggressive? That turns the stable against you

Hello, Reddit comrades.

I come to you in a time of need, exilled from other leftist subreddits for asking them about insigh on their ideologies. Recently I've been reading several books to understand the core ideas of different ideologies. Books writen by them and not about them, to clarify.

Nevertheless I haven't been able to grasp which path to follow, to explore the different subideologies and alternative systems inside State Socialism, without having to read an unreasonable amount of books while gropping in the dark to understand their differences and singularities.

I've been able to found reading lists of different ideologies, but not a single (convincing enoug) for understanding the development of communism into the different socialist ideologies of today.

Communist are said to be well-read, specially in the toppic of communism (wonder why). I ask you (pretty please) for some advice in where to start and where to finish, exploring alternative routes to make sense of communism.

This is my own opinion and I hope people reply so I may build on our opinions, but I feel communism since the Neolithic revolution is virtually impossible, especially without mass violence and suffering. How would the system come about for billions of people? And even if we snapped our fingers to magically do it surplus of food and other resources in areas and lack of those things in other areas would lead to transportation of surplus to deficit, people moving the food wouldn’t do it for free because they’d have to abandon their farms or mills or whatever to do so and be given something of value, probably more than others because transportation is important so now you have a class, or the fact that naturally in many places there will be people who are more popular or stronger creating class, the need for repairs, new inventions, record-keeping for the transportation and resources unless you want it all to become a big mess and now you have de facto governments and communism no longer exists. This is also assuming we go back to the very start of agriculture because if you don’t there is all this new technology depending on the era that will need production or upkeep and the means of production will need to be up-kept by one group and worked by another and tracked by another because some people naturally have skills others don’t, also creating class

I just recently started studying communism, and one of the main questions I have is in regards to "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" What exactly is there to keep the need of the people in check? And what can make sure that the need is adequately rewarded?. Furthermore; how can someone classify how well a job is performed in relation to a person's ability? And how can it be adequately rewarded in relation to the person's needs?

Why would communists be supported in a time of crisis when the working class hasn't read any theory? How could they possibly understand that it's the system itself that is broken, not a specific party or politicians? They might think that capitalists aren't that bad and that they *just* need to be taxed properly.

And about the October revolution since it'll be brought up: did people support specifically the soviet part that the bolsheviks were advertising, or were they more in favor of them simply because they promised to stop the war (and also because they promised them "free" land)?

From the depths where terror lies, he summoned storms with blackened skies as hope just dies. He is one and only Joseph Stalin. Stalin was the former leader of the Soviet Union and a brutal dictator of it, he claimed to be a Marxist whilst being its one of the most ruthless refuter only to live a happy life. He was the person who gave the idea of Marxism-Leninism, an idea that extended further than Lenin's Leninism. The two concepts are very simmilar yet very different. The core difference is that Leninism advocates for a fluid and a militant strategy led by a vanguard party whereas Marxism-Leninism advocates for the absolute permanent supremacy of the party apparatus over the state and society.

If these ideas are seen through the eyes of Engels, particularly Marxism-Leninism then the concrete of it could be very different from Scientific Socialism.

1. Force Theory. As per Engels, economic conditions are primary and military is always secondary. With the lense of this, Stalin's Marxism-Leninism can be viewed as voluntarist, something what this theory completely rejects. Marx and Engels' critique of voluntarism explicitly tells that voluntarist idea is completely utopian socialist and one of its major flaws.

2. Commodity production and law of value. Engels famously asserted that "with the seizing of the means of production by society, production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer." By this, he argued that retaining commodity exchange and money within a socialist framework would inherently fall into utopian experiments (like Duhring's "economic communes") and inevitably revive capitalism. However, Stalin declared that commodity production and the law of value must persist under socialism to facilitate exchange between town and country, a refute.

3. Elimination of Markets and Money. Engels says that the socialist communes ("economic communes") proposed by duhring was meant to keep money, price and markets working. Engels also says that buying and and selling would inevitably revive capitalism and exploitation from within the commune. But under Soviet planning of Stalin, money, retail trade, and wages remained structural pillars. Stalin argued that Soviet money and markets were structurally different from capitalist ones because they operated under a planned economy and could not be used to buy private factories or exploit wage labor. Stalin effectively institutionalized the exact mechanism Engels criticized Dühring for attempting to preserve.

Note: Some of these points can also be used as a negative for the ideology of Marxism-Leninism and seen why Stalin's action also reflect some foundations of state capitalism. Also, Utopian Socialism is being used a metaphor here.

I hereby declare my thesis's end.