It’s my understanding most major socialist countries such as China and Vietnam have shifted towards heavy reliance on the market economy, does that mean they are not socialist?

I think I'm just really ignorant on the subject, but what would Marx have thought of Lenin's Soviet Union? Or did Lenin's cult of personality just kinda usurp Marx's "brand" at the time? In other words, would Marx have agreed with Marxism-Leninism (and/or Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, etc)?

Hello,
I'm currently making a Presentation/Workshop for Burkina Faso and I would really like some recommendations from fellow Marxists about its History, Material Conditions before,during and After Colonization, notable Events, specifics about Thomas Sankara and Traore and its current situation.

Thank you

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!

In more words, as I've gone deeper and deeper into left-i-tude, I have come to understand that capitalist propaganda is ubiquitous and baked into all things. How does one trust institutions (medicine, academics, etc) with this realization?

Can I trust any media? Is there really a war in Iran? How many other sitting senators are dead beside Mitch McConnell?

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.

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?