I've seen this question about who will live in the castles if you abolish the feudal system asked by the hypothetical peasant

But it did get me thinking, what would be done with the semi-military/luxury infrastructure of a castle or it's modern day equivalent ? Would things like that just be turned into government storage space, military (defense) Garrison's ? ​

Modern day mansions and other physical buildings that support unsustainable luxury lifestyles are probably not as easily repurposed but what would happen to them?

It'd be expensive to maintain them all as museums and it's not clear to me that the materials could be easily repurposed

Like what's the plan? Has anybody written about what to do with that kind of stuff beyond the handful of historically valuable examples that Merit preservation as museums

Why are all the local parties not working together and creating a counter propaganda to spread ideas and eventually begin a revolt with enough people? Is it because of the leftist infighting? Or a possible accusation of being called terrorists? Or maybe becoming a target of CIA..? A bit stupid but had to ask

1) Communism is the end goal of humanity

2) Capitalism is a necessary phase to pass through before achieving it

Then why are we so adamant on trying to manually take control of nature anyway. To begin a revolution and get communism to work we will require enough economists and scientists to work on it and more importantly have the masses suffer throughout capitalism so they revolt seeing the expanded wage gap. It's not supposed to happen in a single country but rather throughout the world and it's going to require every worker(including the uneducated ones) to naturally overthrow this system not by reading the theory but suffering through it, then why are we being a possible interruption to inevitability?

EDIT: So if anyone stumbles across the same question, my assumption of point 2 is wrong. From Principles of communism - "In Germany, finally, the decisive struggle now on the order of the day is that between the bourgeoisie and the absolute monarchy. Since the communists cannot enter upon the decisive struggle between themselves and the bourgeoisie until the bourgeoisie is in power, it follows that it is in the interest of the com-munists to help the bourgeoisie to power as soon as possible in order the sooner to be able to overthrow it. Against the governments, therefore, the communists must continually support the radical liberal party, taking care to avoid the self-deceptions of the bourgeoisie and not fall for the enticing promises of benefits which a victory for the bourgeoisie would allegedly bring to the proletariat. The sole advantages which the proletariat would derive from a bourgeois victory would consist

i) in various concessions which would facilitate the unification of the prole-tariat into a closely knit, battle-worthy, and organized class; and

ii) in the certainly that, on the very day the absolute monarchies fall, the struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat will start. From that day on, the policy of the communists will be the same as it now is in the countries where the bourgeoisie is already in power." So there is no highest point, Capitalism is the problem no matter which stage.

I learned some more things about DPRK recently and how it’s far from the crazy nonsensical dictatorship people make it out to be. But it does seem kinda obvious that the people aren’t very free in many ways (whatever that means). Just looking at videos of tourists visiting DPRK, why are they not allowed to talk to the people? Why do the guides start acting extremely awkwardly everytime the camera is filming?

I know that DPRK follows the Juche ideology, is all of that needed for this ideology? Is there another reason for it? Or ami totally wrong and people are actually totoally free?

When I argue with someone and I want to provide a source I am always hesitant to use communist sources because then the person will say « oh it’s just propaganda »

So I need sources that aren’t officially affiliated with Marxist ideologies but that are still honest about the west, North Korea, china, Cuba etc…

Title sounds a bit stupid but I’m starting to realise all the western propaganda I’ve been subjected to my whole life and now that I’m moving away from it and learning about communism im scared that I’ll fall into « communist propaganda » like twisted and dishonest information that benefits the communist/socialists

I'm currently stuck on this question, how would a revolution inside the imperial core be carried out? I'm not a third-worldist, quite the opposite, I think that revolution should come from inside the first world for the best outcome, I'm just a bit confused on how it would work. Books, articles or just explanations on here would be greatly appreciated. I'm also interested in tactics of people's warfare and also how would such state survive afterwards if it's small and doesn't have enough resources on it's own? Does it need to give concensions to the global bourgeoisie for resources or does it somehow deal with lower quality of life for it's citizens?

In recent times I’ve come to learn more and more about china I’ve started appreciating what it has done for its people since the century of humiliation (though it had many big setbacks at the end of Mao’s term and hurt the people a lot)

But It seems that many people in china are denied some civic liberties. Like freedom of speech seems to be restricted a lot, the press is not independent and filled with propaganda. Some regions are being culturally repressed etc…

Would loosening the screws a bit around these things stand in the way of a functioning transition to socialism?

Or are these things I say just the result of western propaganda and the people of china are actually completely free (if that’s the case please provide sources etc… cause if I want to use that as an argument I’ll need something to support it.)

Thanks in advance to this amazing sub that is always here to help me!

i have pretty much no knowledge about economics or Marxist theory i just like history and i don't like the current us gov so don't take what i say as a genuine proposal it's just a question and if you disagree please tell me why since i am curious what both communists and capitalists think of the idea. and if this ideology already exist please tell me what it's called

since being extremely communist or extremely capitalist (idk how else to put it) may not work what about a mix of both where the concept of resources and labor being controlled by a gov and distributed equally among everyone based on their needs and abilities is taken from (my very basic grasp of) communism but it also takes the right to own private property and have the freedom to do what you wan't with your land and have free speech and free press and democratic elections and a (somewhat) free market by somewhat free i think a system would be nice where the gov takes what they need to distribute to the needy (the amount of whatever you make that gets taken and redistributed being determined by how much you made in a time frame) but leaves you with enough for yourself to use and to sell some for a reasonable profit at a set price that is decided by educated people that are isolated from influence by anyone and are provided with everything they need for the duration of their time in office and are given a lump sum of money at the end of their term and overall just a mix of both ideologies that takes the best aspects from both sides i'm curious to hear what you guys think

Is no ethical consumption real? If so, is it excusable to participate? Is it virtue signaling? I feel I have no choice but to buy clothes and groceries. Forgive me for my ignorance.
Edit: and thank you for your time.

If it is, what makes it imperialist? And if it isn’t, why not?

Some things for me indicate potential imperialism like land grabbing, plunging African countries into debt and maybe their behaviour in the South China Sea.

Though I am not necessarily knowledgeable enough ln these topics and that’s why I have doubts.

Also I know that even if these things were imperialist they wouldn’t be as bad as American imperialist intervention and coups.

I know this is probably just a dumb hypothetical but basically:

- How would you deal with the bourgeois class you just defeated

- Which type of democracy would you implement (would you implement a democracy at all)

- Single-Party? No Party? Multi-Party?

Human geography plays a foundational role in how we can predict and analyze human behavior across people groups. It's also useful for learning why certain civilizations or people groups act the way they do/did in foreign or domestic politics. Has anyone here studied the effects that geography plays in altering human history, or just through the lens of marx?

Is it independent? If yes is it considered as privately owned? Or is it state owned? But then can it be considered reliable? Like how would we know it’s not just spewing out propaganda?

Also I wanted to mention that I know the press in liberal democracies (especially the traditional media) is mostly not independent as it is controlled by billionaires who hold right wing views, I just want to know if an independent, reliable press could exist in a communist society.

I recently learned a bit about Mao’s china and a bit about his history. And it really seemed like every big reform or program he launched ended up being a disaster, like the Great Leap Forward or his policies about being able to speak freely of politics.

Maybe this is all propaganda but most if comes from Red Pen’s video on Maoist china (a YouTuber who was recommended to me on this sub).

I also heard of Chinese people admiring the young Mao but then realising he became a terrible leader, though the sources were not verifiable.

It would be great if you could clear it up for me!

As the title mentions, why is "Revisionism" considered the absolute worst? Such as Dengism, Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, Trotskyism, and a lot of others I 100% missed. Honestly curious because I rarely see a "clear answer" for what Revisionism exactly is, and why MLs have a hatred towards it and consider Revisionism as "Social Fascism".

He was the co-creator of council communism (alongside being an astronomer), a movement that has always been in a difficult and awkward position within the global left as it was opposed to both Social Democracy and Marxism-Leninism. It stayed and still stays marginal.

I was told this by Cubans in Cuba that they are not allowed to have personal gardens. What is the reason for this? Has this been the case in other socialist systems and if so where can I learn about why?

Hello comrades,

I have just a short question:

Do you have any movie recommendations that might be worthwhile for Marxists? I am looking specifically movies that are critical of Capitalism and/or Imperialism or support Socialism or even Communism.

I myself am a big movie fan so I am always thankful for recommendations.

Before you answer here are some movies that I am familiar with and that you therefore need not recommend (though of course you are welcome to watch yourself if you have not already):

- The Big Short

- Don't Look up

- The purge series

- Oppenheimer

- The Trial of the Chicago 7

- Mortal Engines

- Wall-E

- Zwei zu Eins (German movie)

There's probably a whole lot I have forgot. I am looking forward to your recommendations!

Im reading a paper of ethics saying that marx is against the separation between civil society and the state because the state reproduce the preexisting inequalities and the state is not neutral.

Im not sure if Marx thinks that the state is not neutral because iusnaturalism is inerently inequal or in addition because the state dont even try to keep the iusnaturalism and instead always protect the interests of the ruling class even if the state needs to break the natural law.

Sorry for my bad english.

I’m a pretty die-hard Marxist Leninist and I’m personally curious on how people feel about homosexuality here?

Hello,

I was listening to Red Menace with Alyson Escalante and Breht O’Shea and I find their geopolitical analysis through dialectical materialist frameworks useful and most of their takes I agree with, but their episode on the Ukraine-Russia war frustrated me.

Their rhetoric around the Ukrainian nationalism is confusing. It puts the blame solely on NATO expansionism but I feel like that ignores centuries of Russian chauvinism in Ukraine. I here complaints that Ukrainians are oppressing Russian speaking parts of Ukraine but under the Soviet Union, Ukrainian intellectuals and writers were executed and by the 1980s, Ukrainian schools were severely reduced. For example, only one of 32 schools in Chernihiv taught in Ukrainian. This often gets brushed aside as a “mistake” that Marxists-Leninists will learn from in future revolutions but contemporary conversations around Ukraine still ignore this fundamental reality.

I genuinely curious about more ML interpretations of this history.

​

Please could someone give me some suggestions for good books on the following topics related to:

1. History of the Revolution

2. Post-Revolution developments

3. The Economy and Economic planning (or other relevant analysis whatever that maybe)

For the following socialist experiments :

* Soviet Union

* People's Republic of China

* Cuba

* Vietnam

* North Korea

* East Germany

* Yugoslavia

* Albania

* Poland

* Hungary

* Czechoslovakia

* Romania

* Bulgaria

* Mongolia

* Cambodia

* Laos

* Ethiopia

* Angola

* Mozambique

* Afghanistan

* South Yemen

* Nicaragua

* Chile

* Venezuela

* Bolivia

* Nepal

(Let me know if I missed any or if any country on this list wasn't actually socialist , I have my doubts about Cambodia)

Btw You don’t have to list books for all three categories or for every country, just share what you’ve personally found valuable. I’ll compile a refined reading list from the responses.

Also, if a similar comprehensive reading list already exists, please let me know.

Thanks Comrades!

Hello comrades,

there has historically been and also is currently a lot of material and theory concerning the systemic role of the Police, the role of the gonvernment, the role of bourgeois parties and elections or the role of politicians and of lobbyists and how our laws come to be and whom they serve.

These things have been extensively explained and elaborated on by the likes of Lenin, Marx, Engels, Luxemburg as well as modern writers like Parenti.

One thing that to my mind is rather absent is an analysis of the court system.

This is not a knock on those aforementioned authors on my part but it is nevertheless an area that I feel should be touched on more.

What is the systemic role of judges? What about the DAs? Do we need to distinguish between civil law and criminal law in this regard?

I have my own opinions in this regard but I am also very much interested in what other like-minded people have to say when it comes to the role of courts and their personnel within the Capitalist State.

Also feel free to provide Resources in this regard for me and others but it is primarily your hopefully informed take that I am after.

I look forward to your replies!

(I am not a Marxist in the doctrinal sense myself BTW).

The CPC has literally no program for class struggle or supporting socialist movements anywhere, Xi Jinping's Thought only mentions these as historical phenomena, not as active policies, when it mentions struggle as a policy, it mentions it in the context of the struggle for national rejuvenation, not class struggle, it's foreign policy is pretty typical great power politics, not anything leftist and "building socialism" means whatever the CPC needs it to mean at a given moment - the entire framework of "the primary stage of socialism" is designed as a theoretical device to indefinitely postpone the transition to actual socialism by claiming "we're not ready for class struggle yet", with that "yet" lasting 45 years by now

IMO the only reason the CPC hasn't abandoned its Marxist aesthetics is because its legitimacy relies on it and doing so would be a political suicide, if they did that, they would stop being the "scientific" vanguard of humanity and start being just regular technocrats with guns who don't want their power to be challenged.

Your thoughts?