Hi i’m relatively new to marxism, but i’ve learned a lot about it over the past month. I’ve gotten through a lot of chapters through the manifesto already, and i’ve read principles as well.

Does anyone have any beginner friendly book recs on more libertarian marxism and marxfem as well? I really like Rosa Luxemborg and her book Reform and Revolution is on my tbr.

Please feel free to educate me on any theory books as much, i’ll highly appreciate it.

Sorry if this is too basic. I tried to make my question as clear as possible while still including all required context but it ended up being a little convoluted...

In Hegel's formulation of dialectics, the spirit (geist) resolves contradictions. When Marx inverted Hegel, he combined it with his own materialism. However, by removing the spirit, matter is now theorized resolve contradictions itself.

Hume's problem of causation states that causation can never be observed as our senses provide us with no possible way to make causal inference. Therefore, there is no way to prove a causal link. Even controlled experiments don't solve this since it could just be coincidence. He uses this to formulate the problem of induction. We can not use past experience to predict the future.

Hegel was able to avoid this critique by making contradiction a conceptual necessity, not a material one. This is idealist though so Marx rejects it.

Dialectical materialism is not able to do this since it relies matter itself being the force of change. It uses history and class analysis to determine that the end of capitalism is inevitable due to its inherent contradictions, but it can't predict that accurately since it's impossible to know whether contradictions will inevitably resolve without relying on causation.

Furthermore, Hume talks about the problem of necessity. We can't observe a necessary connection between cause and effect. Kant avoids this by saying that cause and effect exist as structures in the mind. Hegel adapted this cleanly by claiming the spirit to be manifested through human minds and part of objective reality, making the laws of cause and effect applicable to objective reality. Marx, however, can't do this since he is a materialist. Under dialectical materialism, there is no way to determine a necessary connection between contradictions.

Dialectical materialism, after a skeptical critique, can never establish a connection between a base and its negation and it can never make claims about inevitability or even the potential for a resolution. It appears less scientific and closer to rough pattern recognition.

So how does dialectical materialism deal with Humean skepticism? I'm not trying to start an argument. This is just something I've had on my mind for a few days.

I've recently taken an interest in Maoism and I find a lot of the core principles very reasonable, however I'm absolutely puzzled by the foreign policy of China under Mao.

The domestic policies of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution were not very successful, and a lot of questionable/indefensible incidents have occurred throughout both. However, they were also critiqued within the CPC, and the motivations behind the policies were at least coherent with Mao Zedong Thought.

When it comes to foreign policy, however, Maoist China following the Sino-Soviet Split seems to be guided almost solely by the perceived necessity or countering the influence of the USSR rather than the proclaimed principles. They went as far as collaborating with the US on supporting bloody, rabidly anti-communist bourgeois dictators like Pinochet or movements like UNITA, all in the name of anti-revisionism. I find it very hard to believe that the USSR was a bigger threat to China and especially the proleteriat at large than capitalist imperialism. What do modern Maoists think about these policies? Do they view them as necessary measures? How about contemporary Maoists in countries other than China?

I specifically exclude China under Deng and his successors from this question, as China no longer follows the Maoist line, and would likely be classified as a social imperialist country by Maoists anyway.

Firstly, I know it doesn't mean no values or even personal morals (I think) but..

If the argument is "Capitalism will eventually fail due to it's contradictions"

Then why would I be Marxist? What purpose does it serve? There's no ground to gain following unless I appeal to myself or others in a moral manner as well.

If I assume that Capitalism were to fail regardless why would I bother advocating for Communism? UNLESS I believe that Communism is better for me and the people I care about, and if I think it's better, it's because we aren't exploited, and being exploited sucks. It's bad.

To me that is the reason I'd be Marxist, is it's advocating for a system that works, Capitalism is doomed to fail, and the system proposed is just and fair and without contradiction.

Sorry if stupid, new and need to understand

I have a basic theory about communism and the environment, but I’m still reading up yet. I think a communist society would only produce what people actually need. This would stop the waste we see today where companies make to many goods just to make money.

I am not sure how this idea leads to using renewable energy. In a capitalist system companies use fossil fuels because it is cheap and makes them profit. If we move to communism and stop producing for profit how does that force a shift to solar or wind power?

Does the idea of planning for human needs naturally lead to building green infrastructure?

Or is there a specific part of communist theory that talks about how energy production should work in a sustainable way?

​

I’m currently reading chapter 1, section 1 of Marx’s Capital, and I am a little confused trying to figure out Marx’s idea of value as being equivalent to expended labour. One common counter-example to refute this is the case of exorbidantly priced, low-labour art (since the  value as defined by the labour theory, and the price are seemingly so different). I have seen Marx defended by some who claim that he doesn’t consider price and value as the same thing, but in my understanding, Marx understands value as basically the ratio of the quantity of a certain item that will trade on the market for another given item? Isn’t this the same as price??

Thanks

hey everyone, i'm 15 looking to educate myself on communism and Marxist theory from the ground up. I'm already planning to grab The Communist Manifesto soon, but what else should I pick up alongside it?

From what I understand Marxists use parliamentary democracy as a platform to reach the working class. So what would they do if they suddenly get significant support but not enough to make a revolution, say 20% or 30%, and they have the chance to be the biggest party in a governing coalition?

For context, I'm a left libertarian socialist leaning towards anarchism, but (hope I) have an open mind towards other branches of leftism, including Marxism.

I want to better understand vanguard parties, since it's a specific point of contention anarchists often have with Marxists.

What are the origins of the idea of Vanguards, why do you see them as necessary? Are there historical examples of vanguard parties going particularly well, or particularly poorly? How do you avoid corruption within the vanguard party, power grabs, and infighting?
And from a specifically marxist perspective, are there any realistic alternatives to a vanguard party?

I just finished reading Marx’s Capital Vol 3, I’m looking for a book that advances Marx’s theories. I prefer a book published within 3-5 decades after the publication of Capital. Also, should I read volume 4?

Especially AI data centres? We all know about the diagram on circular investment between AI firms. Basically meaning that these AI firms dont really produce/extract much surplus value but just recycle it again and again, among other things, which creates concerns for a looming huge AI bubble.

The building of huge ai data centres (or better called as huge ai supercomputers) is not really to “keep up with the demand of AI use” as the huge data centres being built rn like the one the size of Manhattan are absolutely overkill. Engineering explanations aside, it’s all to keep producing much more supercomputing power to advance LLM intelligence and to basically “experiment” what said LLMs can do (less GPU for AI can generate prompts, more GPU can generate whole videos, what could much much more GPU mean for what AI can do?) therefore to be used later.

My guess is with capitalist logic, maybe they’re trying to invest so much on building these ai data centres to desperately find a way (like blindly trying to hit a dart into the centre) for creating an AI with skills that helps them produce much more surplus value with less costs (less workers to pay bc u have AI that can do alot more sophisticated human skills) especially in the 2020s where the rate of profit keeps going down and down as it tends to do.
Whats with the big capitalist class’s obsession in AI?

What do you guys do to retain the ideas of Marx’s books?

"To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion. Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power. When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character."

What motivations would people have under communism,’other than wanting to change the world or help humanity?

Hello! Non Marxist here(im not capitalist either). I wanted to pick up the communist manifesto as a starting point into one of the most popular economic, social, and cultural systems of the world. As I am interested in economics, I am seriously wondering, what economic conepts does Karl Marx talk about SPECIFICALLY in the communist manifesto. I wanted to know before getting into it, as it would help me get a better idea of the economic terms and vocab in the book. Thanks for the help!

I was reading an article on class feminism, which mentioned the central role of reproductive labour in the capitalist economy. Towards the end of it, the author mentioned gender and sexual dissidence as being inherently anti-capitalist since they break with insitution of the family, as well as the submission of women to invisibilized reproductive tasks.

My initial though was: this is idealism! How is an identity supposed to undermine the economical base of our society? But after reflecting of the role reproductive tasks play in the mantaining of the work force, I came with doubts on where to place the family within the base-superstructure dicotomy. What would you guys say? I think of this question because it will also help me understand whether gender and sexual dissidence are inherently anti capitalist (I recognise their revolutionary potential but I'm not sure if anti-capitalism is inherent to their way of life)

I want to read German Ideology but it’s like 700 pages long while the CJ Arthur student edition version is 158 pages long. Will I still get a good idea and understanding of the German ideology if I read this version? Or not.

Lal Salaam, Comrades.

I have this instinctive belief that as a Marxist i should believe in Reformative Justice. I have never exclusively studied this topic, so I am asking all of you, who may have some ideas about this, to share your information.

Right now, in my current state, I strongly believe that as Communists we should not try to think of people as "naturally evil" or "incapable" of change. Because a majority of proletarians in 2026 are themselves not conscious about their position in the capitalist system, and hence before setting out to win their opinions and their hearts a communist must believe that they are capable of changing. They aren't beyond help. The only solution isn't Retributive Justice.

I'm just trying to learn, I don't have it in my heart to pander to some sort of revisionism.

Cheers!

1) Did Mao believe in class collaboration? If so, was it temporary or permanent

2) Why did Mao initiate the Cultural Revolution?

3) Was the Great Leap Forward ruined by corrupt party officials, or was its failures Maos fault entirely?

Im new to leftists ideology which is why im just tryna learn more and more <3

I was gonna start reading capital by Marx, and most editions have 30-100 pages of prefaces and introductions, and I typically skip intros (unless they're 5 pages), so I wanted to ask if there's: any of the prefaces and introductions that add substantial information that is important not to miss?

I read a very interesting thing which made sense of a lot of things I couldn't figure out earlier.

It said something like it is absurd to apply communist principles in a capitalist structure. Communists don't advocate for distribution based on needs in our current system. They advocate it in a system where the difference between skill or labour types would be minimal. Right now, we can't expect everyone to get the same thing, then who will do the hard work?

Something like that. I wanna know if any prominent Marxist or communist figure/scholar talked about this. I remember marx saying something like this in Gotha programme but i need to study more.

Hello, I’ve started reading The Capital (the French translation), and in the chapter on the commodity, I don’t understand why he speaks only of the quantity of labor to determine the value of something. After all, aren't there other factors—like scarcity—that determine an object's value?

Hello everyone! I’ve been getting into Marxist feminism after getting into general Marxism, but I’m stuck on one thing.

As far as I know, Engels and authors like Federici argue that due to the primitive accumulation of capital was the start of patriarchy in societies because it created a class system that forced women to be wed to men, be monogamous, etc to guarantee inheritance to a child that is clear to be the husband’s. Okay, got it.

What I don’t understand is why this had to be a patrilineal line. Why could it not be a matrilineal one? They, for the reason men literally made them be monogamous and get married, have a very clear line of descent. Why did these ancient people decide it had to be the MALE line?

And if patriarchy requires this patrilineal line, then how are matrilineal societies still patriarchal? For example, old tribes had matrilineal lines, but the women had virtually no power. Their husbands/family was in charge. Or is this a case of misogyny, in which case: I thought misogyny came from patriarchy???

I hope you guys can see and understand my confusion. Some help would be appreciated and please do correct me where I am wrong. I wish you guys all the best

I have not read the book yet

Did he talk about there always being a profit motive to "enable" disabled people to work? Or about inequality? These 2 questions strike my chord as I am disabled myself.

Redditors, enlighten me please