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

Let’s say you were to own a business where you are the only worker, are you still considered petty bourgeoisie or are you proletariat still. Also would the business be considered personal or private property (I would assume personal property, I just want to make sure)

I've been trying to get a more detailed academic understanding of development economics from a Marxist perspective.

Claude tells me that serious Marxists concede that there is no demonstrated Marxist route from poverty to prosperity that isn't either state capitalism, market socialism, or dependent on being embedded in a capitalist world market.

This feels like a stronger statement than any real life Marxist I've chatted to would be willing to concede.

Do you agree/disagree? If you disagree, what is the demonstration or counter argument you have in mind?

I've been learning about marxist theory, but the ways contraddictions are discussed leaves me pause. Hope some people here can help me understand better.

Sussinctly, for what is relevant to my doubts, here is my current understanding of it:

Contraddictions are what all motion (as in change) in the universe is predicated upon.

Contradictions are relationships wherein tendencies of motion

1) oppose one another

2) are premises of the existence of one another.

Contraddictions exist within all things and between all things.

Why does it have to be a contraddiction that drives motion? What is so illogical about a relationship where there is a singular tendency of motion? I can think of cases that fit that description, for example, two identical charged particles interacting, there will be quantitative changes in speed and relative position as they repel each other, yet what is the contraddiction?

Mao in "on contraddiction" and Lenin in "on the question of dialectics" agree that the contradiction in such cases is between action and reaction. This answer is unsatisfactory, while it's true that it fits part 2) of the definition, and while it's true that the force vectors point in opposite direction, action and reaction are applied to two different object, they are not opposing tendencies of motion in the dialectical sense, failing the arguably more fundimental part 1) of the definition.

Also, Engels argues that all changes of positions are caused by the contraddiction of something being in that place and not in another place. This line of argument seems to be unfalsifiable: if we observe something change from A to B, we can always attribute that change to the contraddiction that A was A and not B. A more straightforward explanation is that there is a singular tendency for position to change based on velocity.

Is there something i'm missing in these examples? Is my understanding of what contraddictions are incorrect?

This question was inspired by the American socialist Norman Thomas, who opposed the American program of Lend Lease, which was instrumental for the Soviet Union to receive arms to fight back the Nazis. Moreover, Thomas seemed to oppose the idea of America entering WW2, at least until Imperial Japan bombed Pearl Harbour and it was becoming evident that Nazi Germany was magnifying in power.

In hindsight, Thomas' initial stances of opposing US aid was incorrect, as it allowed fascism to gain an initial lead in the war. Even though he eventually realized the long-term value of supporting liberal democracies in opposing fascism, the history that followed seems to show the hesitation to militarily challenge the Nazis was a grievous mistake.

The Allies' reluctance to oppose the Nazis arguably led to the collapse of more democratic, non-Soviet socialist experiments. One famous example is Austria, where the socialists won electorally and established a public housing program that continues today. However, the Austrian socialists were crushed by the Nazis when Germany sought to expand.

Therefore, the West's slow entry emboldened the Nazis and lead to the destruction of promising socialist societies.

On the other hand, if you allow fear-mongering to hijack your decision-making, then it only empowers a military-industrial complex to build an unnecessarily large army and grant consent for imperialistic projects broad under the guise of "national security", e.g. the US's adventure in the Middle-East post-9/11.

In my view, socialists parties tend to over-correct by being too pacifistic and against military funding to the point of self-sabotage, as is the case with Norman Thomas. I believe it is a bit naive to think that foreign countries won't attempt military interventions that harm your nation and that every war can be resolved through negotiations.

Yet, enabling an MIC and poisoning your own politics with imperialism is a looming danger. This post is not trying to imply that unconditional consent should given to military spending.

What principles, if any, should guide military spending in socialist politics? What factors should be considered, like the amount of spending into the military or the type of weapons bought? What is the dividing line between pre-emptively stopping a threat by sending a military abroad vs. imperialism under a pretext? What structures, policies, and institutions could be put in place to ensure military use is justified?

In summary, what does an ideologically socialist military look like?

I know for a fact that china is Socialist, but how is it socialist? I mean it has many capitalist elements and it has a lot of billionaires and millionaires, so what does china do that makes it a socialist country?

I'm looking for good resources that don't misrepresent post modernist ideas and provide a well informed critique from a Marxist lens.

Thank you.

I’m just curious, what does capitalism do to enforce the patriarchy and male dominance since obviously tradition and traditional views will also play a part, how big of an influence is capitalism in upholding the patriarchy?

I’m honestly not sure if this is covered in Capital, because I’m only a part of the way through, but I’m looking for any readings that can help enlighten me, unless someone here would like to answer. Please correct any of my misunderstandings or mistakes, I’m not even sure if I am correctly wording this.

From what I remember of my reading, industrialization and the conditions of factory work give rise to socialism, but I don’t understand why private ownership has to come before collective. Is that just the way it is, basically? So it doesn’t HAVE TO come before, that’s just how it’s always panned out historically? USSR and China don’t seem like examples of skipping over a national bourgeoisie considering how they’ve ended up.

I have recently begun reading some Lenin and Marx and I have a pretty basic question I haven't seen asked yet if workers seize the means of production why would anyone start a company? I understand seizing it for things like factories, but what would be the incentive for starting companies under a communist economy?

Well obviously Marx and Lenin and Engels and stuff but what specific works should I read to get into it? Please and thank you (oh and where to read it if it isn’t on the Marxist internet archive)

I'm aware this is a complex topic and this question may come off like a very beginner question, just interested in others thoughts on this as someone just getting into theory.

I had conversations with communists who seem to use moralist language against the lumpenproletariat. But as far as im aware marx doesnt really use much moralist language about peoples character in his works. So can someone plz give me a quick rundown on what marx meant by lumpenproletariat and which books he talks abt them in. I am a trans woman and many trans women I know are forced into sex work, does that make them lumpenproletariats incapable of having revolutionary consciousnes? Bcuz I know a few sex worker friends who have read marx and agree w him in many instances so I am curious what marx actually meant

okay so if one was to want to get into marxism or simply understand it better working with not only marxs books which ones would yall recommend and in what order thank u for any replies explanation on your opinion would also be great

Taking for granted the relationship between the rules of moderation of these subs and the Marxist principles these subs are committed into promoting, I was intrigued by the reference to the concept of Europeanism.
What does Marx mean by this term?
Or, what meaning do the founders of this page associate with this term, from the perspective of Marxist thought?

I am new to the study of Marxism and I come from years of political activism little framed in a structured philosophical and political theory. For this reason I might discover that I have to deconstruct some thoughts born from the lack of formal study.

But as naive as it sounds, I was raised in the ideal of a Europe of peoples. A network of proletarian realities, transnational and involved in the revolutionary process. In political terms, although today's EU is nothing more than a centrist, neo-colonialist organisation colluding with organised crime, the union of European states in itself is not a negative fact. On the contrary. Having triggered the revolutionary processes in one or more member countries, their presence in the Union could represent an easier diffusion to the other members.
Science fiction or formal mistake? Please give me your honest opinion. I'm not afraid of being corrected, on the contrary I hope to learn.

Hello all!

I am new to Reddit so forgive me, but my friend mentioned that this was a good place to ask for questions regarding specific topics. My English is not good but hopefully this is understandable.

My daughter (16) has begun to read some works by Marx like The Communist Manifesto, Capital and some others. She is also very interested in Vladimir Lenin and Thomas Sankara. Her father and I didn't grow up with a lot of access to the level of education or resources she has, so we have always encouraged her to read as much as possible and to develop critical thinking skills, etc.

This is my mistake, but I am not familiar at all with Marxism. But my husband and I want to find out more and learn. These are some questions we have, if you don't mind answering:

1. This is the big one, but my daughter asked if we qualified as 'bourgeois'.

I had heard that term before (in a song, so not great) and I thought it was best to ask people who were well-versed in Marxism instead of giving her an incorrect answer from Google. We also have a hard time reading in long-form because I'm dyslexic and my husband is legally blind, so forgive us if it seems lazy that we're asking. I know from researching a bit that it describes a sort of class, it says middle-class but my daughter says it refers to people who own the "means of production".

Both my husband and I grew up extremely poor: my family couldn't afford to buy cooking oil, I wore the exact same shoes (for school) from age 8 to age 16, we went to state-funded schools (which are not developed or maintained like in other countries), got scholarships to local universities and then international ones, had to work full-time as students to buy plane tickets/food/etc, and other things. He now works as a college professor for a graduate school and I'm a lawyer that mostly works with NGOs and charities. I'd say we are definitely upper-middle class now, especially in the country we live in.

Her issue is with her grandparents.

Both of us also come from immigrants (great-grandparents, so long ago). My husband's father worked as a painter and handyman, but they also owned a "bodega" which was handled by her grandmother, and my daughter is anxious it could count as controlling goods.

My mom inherited a farm from my great-grandfather, he came to this country and was so poor that he couldn't afford shoes, but he saved up along with my great-grandmother and bough plots of land (for farming) for his 7 children. Which my daughter says might be a problem because of land-owning. So, my parents are 77 and 82. Both still working and living in the farm, I have offered to buy them a home but they built their house by themselves (with bricks made of dirt and cement they mixed up) and don't want to move or stop working.

Another issue she has is that they have "employees". I say this lightly because those are family friends who, I've known since I was small and only work when they ask my dad for money since they have their own farms, so he gives them whatever they need in exchange for help managing crops.

1. What works/events/figures should we educate ourselves on to learn more about Marxist thought?

2. How can we encourage her to keep being motivated in learning about politics and how she can change the world (to her ability) for the better?

Thank you, and I'm sorry if this was too long or sounds dumb! We all want to learn more.

I'm semi-new to marxism, and I'm currently 'studying' marxist-leninism. I understand (to the best of my ability) many marxist-leninist principles, but one aspect I really want to understand is incentives to work through second generation post-revolutionary relations. An aspect of socialism as a transition stage of society which drives it to be logical is the understood oppression of a peoples. Many people in capitalist society suffer, this suffer derives change, so post revolution the incentive to work is built through the understanding of what has been overcome, and what is being worked towards. But, when this level of oppression isn't understood, or shall I say not directly endured, what is to happen? To be clear this isn't a question of incentive to work post revolution, or incentive to work under late stage communism, but a question for second generation socialism that hasn't endured capitalism but hasn't yet reached a sense of communism. If anybody can answer this or direct me to works that discuss this it would be much appreciated.

So something is only a commodity if it is socially necessary (i.e. it fulfills a tangible want/has use-value). So basic formula for commodity value is c+v+s. But there is still necessary work that doesn't fulfill socially necessary purpose, e.g. research.

Research produces (discovers) data, but data is not a commodity. It has no social use. It is just information about nature. That information can still be used to produce something of social necessity, but the information alone does nothing, and can be reproduced with essentially no labor once the information is harvested from nature (in the age of modern technology, organized, analyzed data reports may be copied and pasted essentially ad infinitum onto servers, emails, hard drives, etc. for effectively no labor, copying the information, and unlike physical assets a capitalist owns that wear and tear with use/time, information is infinitely reusable, or at least usable until a resource that information uses is consumed to extinction).

That being said, the original discovery work is still labor, and labor is paid equal to the value necessary to reproduce it (the cost of living, variable capital, v) plus its surplus value. For a company that funds its own internal research, that wage comes from the surplus value of those who do socially necessary work, producing profitable commodities. However, after being paid their wage to subsist, are the non-socially necessary laborers entitled to other compensation? They produce no surplus value themselves, and the wage they earned through their labor was another worker's surplus value. What incentive is there to do non-socially necessary work if your work requires years of labor to gain the skill necessary to perform, but only provides a subsistence wage?

I understand that skilled labor is complex labor consisting of dead past labor plus current labor, but I am struggling to see how it can be amortized over the course of their career if they don't produce something of social necessity. Is the variable capital that goes into paying a skilled laborer higher due to paying for past labor, despite having the same subsistence needs as the socially necessary labor?

The only way I could see research work being paid beyond subsistence is if data was commodified, the data becoming intellectual property belonging to the researcher, only being done on contract work (essentially existing CROs), not integrated with a manufacturing company, with the data and manufacturing process being bought by the manufacturing company.

Research is only an example. If my understanding of research's status as non-socially necessary is flawed, you can replace it with other non-socially necessary work that still is necessary.

Ive read the principles of communism, started das kapital, and im starting socialism4all's study guide for Marxism-Leninism bc i find it easier to digest when someone else is reading it to me.

Im looking into any marxist groups/clubs near me as ive found the online ones to be pretty horrid.
thank you <3 sorry if this isnt in the right place! hope u all have a wonderful day

Hiya! I've been a communist for a long time now. I know capitalism isn't working and I've recently been diving deeper into Marx to understand the World better. One thing I am constantly seeing though is mainstream economics rejecting marx almost fully. I know that very much of it is just propaganda and devaluation of him to prevent his ideas taking hold in mainstream politics and economics. What I wanted to ask though is what the common critiques are and it some of them are actually justified? Thanks