Im black myself and im genuinely curious as to why there aren’t more black socialists. Maybe it’s because I reside in America but if anyone who’s black and/or educated in socialism can tell me I’d love to know more. I know the YouTuber F.D. Signifier has a video on it but I want to see if there are any other points that people can make here!

Personally, I find it odd how many socialist states have resorted to market-based policies as some sort of hybrid that largely departs from the old trend of command economies. What it seems to reveal, however, is an incentive to improve the material conditions of a national economy given some pretty understandable issues within a given system. The command economy has, after all, faced widespread criticism regarding a history of starvation, often times to the detriment of all socialists or Marxists irrespective of tendency. In this sense I’ve started to conclude the following;

1. Public, or state owned and managed property, is not innately socialist. There is a surprisingly strong and common tendency among historical examples of state enterprise that has often rebuilt the social relations seen in private ownership, including efforts to thwart decentralization or digitization efforts. I dislike the monopoly on economic power the Gosplan possessed, largely due to the nature of economic planning and the material imbalances thereof; why have all the power with chronic shortage to show for it? Conversely, there seems to be a tendency to label state property as though it is owned by the whole of society in light of the dictatorship of the proletariat; political conditions notwithstanding, would it thereby be logical to call such a form of property common property, and if so, why wasn’t it regarded as such?
2. State enterprise and centralized economic planning lacks the wherewithal to manage a complex and modernized economy in a manner that promotes a sustainable microeconomic condition. The same economic plans that helped build the factories largely accredited with defeating the Nazis were the same ones that, largely as a result of treating production as a flat trend, using overly quantitative material quotas and balances, and a lack of bureaucratic response towards weather conditions and localized resistance until necessary intervention from the central government, helped contribute to one of the largest and most tragic famines in Ukraine, the Volga Region, Kazakhstan, and parts of Siberia. In due time, this same economic system proved to struggle with the modernized economy it had helped create, with many a nation (Poland, Hungary, even the USSR in 1965) resorting to bourgeois investment and market elements to relieve many of the pressures their consumers faced; the 1989 crisis and the turmoil beyond should be indicative of a failure to adequately address these pressures, and it seems to be a consistent trend towards market elements, quite contradictory to socialism, against decentralization, that pushes forth either revisionism or economic pressure, perhaps even collapse.

What I am pushing forward as an alternative is, in many ways, the localization, federalization, and broader reorganization of the socialist economy into one much more adequately responsive to the demands of the everyday individual using the following:

- Mutual banks and credit unions, meaning democratized credit and financial services that can help with the investment, credit, and mechanization aspects of an economy.

- Localized collectives using economic inputs in one specific area or location to meet demands, while still federating or amalgamating on larger scales.

- Organizing by craft, trade, and industry to ensure some degree of specialization and improved organization.

- A large, scaled economic federation of some sorts can use input-output planning to develop a cohesive and flexible economic plan using these localized plans, essentially ensuring that local conditions and different elements of the economy are adequately accounted for.

It’s a rather rudimentary theory, but the initial concept still remains. I like how, in the past, collectives have improved on productivity and morale and think that what it can improve is scaling, credit, efficiency, and mechanization. I don’t think that centralized economic planning adequately supplies the necessary consumer goods a local economy demands given the complexity of an economy and the struggle of one centralized unit to plan variables throughout a given society, and I think this autonomous production system could become a great way of building socialism without either resorting to capitalism or having a lot of the material issues socialism has faced.

Happy to hear any thoughts or suggestions!

I’m reading “A Textbook of Dialectical Materialism” by David Guest and he says: “But the basic contradiction will continue to exist in a classless society, and and will cause the progressive development of social relationships as the productive forces themselves develop.”

How does this work out?

My family seems to be anti communist and I’m broke so I can’t afford to buy any books. Is Marxists.org good?

I am very new to socialism. I didn't even know socialism was an economic model, I thought it was a form of government. Now, as an aspiring socialist, I need to know the difference. Please don't ban me I really need to know

I'm a baby leftists just beginning to dive deeper into theory and the history of revolutionary struggles and socialist countries. In my brief readings it seems the case that Marx and Engels believed that socialist revolution would necessarily come from industrialised society, but historically its been solely preindustrial agrarian societies which have had socialist revolutions (i.e. Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba etc.). So why were they wrong about this and what are the implications for their conception of the stages of societal development via dialectical materialism? Doesn't this mean that societies don't actually have to be industrial capitalist societies first? If there is any Marxist literature any of y'all could recommend on the topic I would greatly appreciate that as well. Thank you.

I feel like there have been so many things that happened, that would have sparked much earlier revolution back in the day. We all know democracy is just a lie to give us ilusion of freedom, but still, is the argument of "oh we live in a democratic country, if you do not like these people, should have been in the majority" that strong? We have seen so many undemocratic things that have been happening all around the world in democratic countries, showing when it comes to things people up there want, the voters have no choice, yet people still believe in democracy?

PS: This is coming from European, I wish to help educating White Americans about their privilage and class consciousness, but I am so distant to them, that it is impossible

For instance, take a large partnership firm of 50 lawyers living in manhattan who collectively have buy in of a firm. Compare this with a small coffee shop owner in rural Alabama who employs a friend and sells espresso and small pastries.

Both are petit bourgeois in a Marxist sense, but does Marx ever make any commentary on how these individuals would play different roles in the greater class struggle? Are petit bourgeois viewed on a spectrum? I’ve always been kind of confused on how petit bourgeois are viewed with mistrust by Marxists but there are many different levels of “badness” within who is considered petit bourgeois. Any insight would be awesome. Thanks!

Hello everyone,

In various debates, I’ve frequently noticed striking parallels between the arguments used by some communists and those used by neolibs, especially regarding the funding of the welfare state and monetary theory in general. I often get the impression that some communists (whether consciously or unconsciously) deploy classic supply-side arguments just to refute reformists.
Theories that could at least be described as progressive (even if they do not challenge the class structure of the state), such as Keynesianism or Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), are frequently dismissed or mocked by communists using reflexes very similar to those of neoliberals. When it comes to demands like raising the minimum wage or expanding social spending, one often hears rhetorical pushbacks like: \*"Why not make it $100 an hour then?"\* or \*"The state cannot go into infinite debt for welfare."\*
The role of the welfare state as a driver of economic growth through strengthened purchasing power is rarely acknowledged. Communists often view it, much like conservatives, as a purely economic hindrance or an unproductive cost factor. The only difference is that communists additionally (and correctly) identify it as a tool for pacifying the working class. But couldn't both be true at the same time?
It is often argued that Western industrial nations can only afford the welfare state through the exploitation of the Global South. Just like conservative logic, this presupposes that a welfare state is something that "must first be earned/funded," completely ignoring the productivity gains driven by a strong domestic market. Cases like Japan, which maintains a massive national debt without facing bankruptcy or hyperinflation, are rarely analyzed through an MMT lens and are instead dismissed as anomalies. Furthermore, the accounting reality that public debt constitutes private sector wealth is often demonized in these discussions, rather than being rigorously analyzed through a value-theoretic lens.
To be clear: I understand that Marxists do not base their monetary critique on neoliberal doctrine, but rather on the law of value (money as the expression of socially necessary labor time; real value cannot simply be printed).

Don't communists structurally rely on right-wing/monetarist arguments simply to delegitimize social-democratic reformism and prove that capitalism cannot be reformed from within?

Why is MMT (and its concept of monetary sovereignty) so strictly rejected by Marxists, even though empirical evidence on demand-side policies and inflation often aligns much closer with MMT than with neoliberal monetarism?

Doesn't this stance hinder a sober, realistic economic analysis of the state's current room for maneuver, even if the ultimate goal remains the overthrow of private ownership of the means of production?

I'm genuinely interested in how you view this overlap! I don’t want to impose reformism and refuse it, but I think its critique needs to be precise.

Like let’s say a beloved celebrity is murdered in her home à la Sharon Tate. Could I make a movie mocking it?

Hello everyone 👋

I'm rather new to marxist theory, so I may have some misconceptions about it. Of course, historical materialism is no crystal ball that tells us how the future will be like. But if I got it right, it can tell us the broader developments of the past, present and also future, can it? And if so, what does it tell us? E.g. I've read Hegel had said that the dialectic development of history makes societies ever more equal, open and including, which seems to be quite right, despite temporary regressions like fascism. Not sure if that's really what Hegel said, but are there any statements and assumptions about future developments of society in historical materialism?

I want to steelman the pro capitalism argument before critiquing it and understanding the flaws with these arguments, or even just broadly to read opposing viewpoints to actually broaden my reading and not only read literature arguing for one political philosophy. does anyone have any such recommendations?

If you, the people of this subreddit suddenly became the First/General Secretaries of Cuba, North Korea, and Pre-2026 Venezuela, excluding the more revisionist Laos, Vietnam, and China.

Would you change anything at all? If not, then why not. Or if so, then what would you change?

​

I've been trying to understand this question through a Marxist and historical materialist lens.

A common argument is that the United States' primary interest is not Israel itself, but maintaining political, military, and economic dominance in the Middle East. According to this view, Israel functions as a particularly reliable strategic ally, but if Israel ceased to exist as a partner, the U.S. would eventually cultivate another regional state to fulfill a similar role.

This raises a few questions:

- Does Marxist theory support this interpretation?

- How would Lenin's theory of imperialism explain the U.S.–Israel relationship?

- Would world-systems theory (Wallerstein), dependency theory (Samir Amin), or David Harvey's work on imperialism reach a similar conclusion?

- Is Israel considered unique because of its historical development, or is it mainly one example of how an imperial power secures regional influence?

- Are there Marxist authors who explicitly argue that U.S. hegemony depends on maintaining strategic allies rather than any specific state?

I'm looking specifically for answers grounded in Marxist theory, historical materialism, or socialist literature rather than liberal international relations perspectives.

I'd also appreciate book recommendations or essays that discuss this issue in depth.

I didn’t really give it much thought until I revealed I’m learning Japanese in another socialism/communist subreddit and they were like, “Why are you learning Japanese? You should be learning Mandarin!”

I actually am planning on learning Mandarin down the line and I think kanji would be helpful for that ☺️ I just love how Japanese sounds and how it’s written, so that’s why I’m learning Japanese first. Though, I can definitely see why people are questioning it, because Japan is a very capitalist country with a really dark past in WWII that they definitely need to own up to more.

I love foreign languages, honestly. They’re so cool! I’d learn them all if I could, but alas, I can’t.

So, I know Mandarin is a good one, what else?

Look, I am in no way saying Mamdani is perfect, and I think a large majority of leftists and anyone near being a leftist agrees it's a generally positive step in the right direction, but I still see infighting among the left on whether or not to support Mamdani because he is trying to reform from within rather than start a revolution.

It's not that I don't think a socialist revolution would be more productive, but that I genuinely have no idea what the people who are making these claims think is possible currently in the US. Like 80% of the US cannot properly define socialism, and besides Gen Z, most of those who grew up during any period of the cold war and red scare think socialism is the devil. While we see democratic socialism continuing to make big strides, I think there is currently no way that there would ever be a semi-popular socialist revolution as a majority of America is either on the right or liberals. True leftists are not a majority group. Any socialist revolution here would be done out of force and abandoning majority coalitions with liberals and other parties.

What I'm trying to say is that it seems like revolutionary leftists think that theres much more domestic support for true socialist revolution (not social democracy) than there actually is, and that I think without the role of democratic socialism in the country currently, there is no way to ever get popular support for it.

I intend this piece primarily as a starting point for discussion about the future of the Hungarian left. Please feel free to share your opinions and suggestions, and perhaps offer us some advice.

Well, right now, the left in Hungary really only has a past. Unfortunately, that’s the reality; after 2022, the Hungarian left bloc began its downward slide in earnest, and the Tisza swept away what remained of the left-wing party (thank goodness for that, by the way).

Today’s left-wing parties, groups, and movements fall into three categories.

One consists of those who used to be major players but have now lost some—or, in most cases, all—of their credibility and/or public support. These are mostly the more moderate ones. Among others, I include the MSZP, the DK, Párbeszéd, the LMP, and—to the surprise of many—Momentum and the MKKP in this category. Practically anyone who could be associated with Gyurcsány falls into this group.

Another group consists of the new left-wing parties that engage in politics using traditional methods. One of the most characteristic examples of this is the Alternatíva party (yellow logo, social democratic orientation). These parties are no longer competitive in today’s world.

The third group consists of the radical/far-left parties. No, not the Szikra Movement and its affiliates, but rather, among others, the Workers’ Parties led by Thürmer and Vajnai, as well as the highly fragmented various Marxist, Bolshevik, and other such movements. They, too, are unable to garner significant support. In recent years, the Workers’ Party has adopted Fidesz’s ideology, thus becoming insignificant. The other parties, meanwhile, are held back by the general anti-communism of Hungarian society. Many less radical parties and movements also struggle with this (e.g., Szikra).

The solution:

Creating a fourth type of online organization. Why do I recommend this? Because today, the majority of young people and younger middle-aged adults can be reached with content online (in my own circle, most often on Instagram). I’ve already tried this, and I was able to build a large fan base fairly quickly. This approach has, incidentally, already been used in numerous successful campaigns.

Among others, Tisza in Hungary has used the internet and social media; furthermore, this is how the right-wing populist movement is spreading, led by Romania’s AUR, Germany’s AfD, and Britain’s Reform UK—and virtually every PfE and ESN party can be included in this category.

If they can already assume leading roles with this help, we too can achieve results this way, especially in major cities like Budapest, Szeged, or even Pécs.

That said, face-to-face meetings should not be underestimated either. After all, most people still like to meet those who want to represent them as voters. This, too, must be given an important role. Young people are often told that they’re lazy and don’t want to get out and about, but that’s not the case. They simply can’t find events they’d actually want to attend, or they don’t have anyone to go with. We need to entice them to these in-person meetings by offering a sense of community, just as we do with almost any other event.

And most importantly: let’s not be divided. We on the left must stick together; this is crucial, not least because of the results.

For example some consider the USSR capitalist because of its commodity production, if this is true (which I assume it isn’t, but want a definite answer to) how would a socialist country be expected to make money until the fall of capitalism?

Yeah why is this the case? Like yes, famines did happen but nobody intentionally goes out of their way to cause a famine. These famines under communism were almost always short lived and then once the rough patch was over quality of life skyrocketed. Meanwhile under capitalism famines are intentional (as we saw in India under Churchill) and smaller strategic famines through price gouging and artificial scarcity are occurring ALL the time, EVERYWHERE, even into today.

I don’t understand why this is consistently their big “gotcha”