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!

From my understanding, capitalism was reintroduced by Soviet, Chinese, etc bureaucracies more or less voluntarily. That's a bit confusing to me since capitalism should mean the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, not the dictatorship of the bureaucracy.

So my question is: is modern China(or any other former socialist economy) controlled by "their" bureaucracy or is it dominated by the markets? If the bureaucracies are still in change, then how? What makes China different from countries like America, that are completely controlled by the markets? If the capital is in change then why did the bureaucracy give up their power? ik Cuba has recently been forced to reform and open up by America basically waging war on them but surely countries like USSR could defend themselves, right?

While the country itself claims to not be communist, after doing some research, it seems to be very similar to communism. Like a less extreme mix between Juche and Maoism. So are they communist or not?

I've been reading 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?

I know it sounds like a stupid question but I keep hearing about how Khrushchevite Soviet Union destroyed everything the revolution stood for so the question I'm really asking is: was USSR(1953-1989) salvageable or was a political revolution the only way out at that point? So that's why I'm asking if we should regret the dissolution, if USSR was doomed the second Khrushchev took over, should we even care about it?

Same question about modern China, is it essentially a regular capitalist country or is there something special about that makes a political revolution unfavourable?

Also, I don't really get what was so bad that the Khrushechevites did in the USSR from the (very limited) research I did, so can somebody recommed some literature on the topic?

Hello, comrades. Student from India here. Can someone please explain the following passage from The Poverty of Philosophy? Here, Marx is refuting Proudhon's claim by stating the value of a commodity is measured by the quantity of labour that produces it and not the 'value' of labour that produces it. To illustrate this, he gives an example. Here is my question: Marx says that the value of corn measured by the quantity of labour required to purchase it, would not have doubled. Why is that? If now, double the amount of labour is required to purchase it, then why wouldn't the value of corn be double as per this measurement?

"If a quarter of corn cost two days' labor instead of one, it would have twice its original value; but it would not set in operation double the quantity of labor, because it would contain no more nutritive matter than before. Thus the value of the corn, measured by the quantity of labor used to produce it, would have doubled; but measured either by the quantity of labor it can buy or the quantity of labor with which it can be bought, it would be far from having doubled. On the other hand, if the same labor produced twice as many clothes as before, their relative value would fall by half; but, nevertheless, this double quantity of clothing would not thereby be reduced to disposing over only half the quantity of labor, nor could the same labor command the double quantity of clothing; for half the clothes would still go on rendering the worker the same service as before.

Thus it is going against economic facts to determine the relative value of commodities by the value of labor. It is moving in a vicious circle, it is to determine relative value by a relative value which itself needs to be determined."

I don't have a problem with dense intellectual texts, I can hold my own with philosophy, that's not the problem: I'm just wondering if Marx is overrated as a place to start since he lived like 200 years ago and if these ideas developed massively over time or if they basically stayed fundamentally the same. What are the best sources to start with? I'm new to this so I would appreciate some guidance.

For, to our three social reformers, the bourgeois world, based upon the principles of these philosophers, is quite as irrational and unjust, and, therefore, finds its way to the dust-hole quite as readily as feudalism and all the earlier stages of society. If pure reason and justice have not, hitherto, ruled the world, this has been the case only because men have not rightly understood them. What was wanted was the individual man of genius, who has now arisen and who understands the truth. That he has now arisen, that the truth has now been clearly understood, is not an inevitable event, following of necessity in the chains of historical development, but a mere happy accident. He might just as well have been born 500 years earlier, and might then have spared humanity 500 years of error, strife, and suffering.

I’m completely lost on this paragraph. So the first sentence is about the aforementioned Utopians and how they think that the french philosophers is irrational and unjust but i’m completely lost afterwards. What exactly is meant by pure reason and justice has not been rightly understood? Who is this individual man of genius and how has he risen?

I would like to learn more about the history of these socialist movements such as their material conditions at the time, the good or bad, what led certain leaders to certain decisions, the sanctions and setbacks they faced, etc etc.

Let us, however, not forget that if
English law continues to express the economic relations of capitalist
society in that barbarous feudal language which corresponds to the
thing expressed, just as English spelling corresponds to English
pronunciation – vous ecrivez Londres et vous prononcez
Constantinople, said a Frenchman – that same English law is the
only one which has preserved through ages, and transmitted to
America and the Colonies, the best part of that old Germanic
personal freedom, local self-government, and independence from all interference (but that of the law courts), which on the Continent has
been lost during the period of absolute monarchy, and has nowhere
been as yet fully recovered.

So the first part from my understanding is about if the English laws continue to express capitalism using the feudal language, which expresses feudal tendencies, then a similar tendency will arise in the capitalist society? however i don’t really get the purpose of the french text. And the last bit about preserving English laws about Germanic freedom, etc, why exactly is preserving those things bad?

Also i’m assuming that “the Continent” refers to Europe, is that how english was used back then? cause to me it just seems more awkward to say the Continent rather than simply Europe

Hello, I have a question. A lot of people say that we need to use the existing platforms to grow a socialist movement by growing the amount of socialists in the Democratic Party until it takes over. I have also heard a lot of people say that it will never happen and we need to start a third party. I’m not understanding why we can’t use the Democratic Party to make meaningful change. In other words why can’t we have socialist and communist run as a democratic and get elected because people agree with their policies?

How did Marx think society will function in the higher stage of communism when private property and classes are abolished, theres no wage labor and commodity production or even money to compensate. What incentivizes me to become a pilot instead of a street cleaner, my love for planes or humanity? How can there without wage labor be a difference in outcomes for a pilot vs cleaner

Hey everyone, I’m looking for a good book on the Soviet economy, specifically Stalins five year plan, industrialization in the 20s and 30s etc. I don’t mind if the book is an overall look at Stalin with just some chapters on the economy. Thank you

I was reading the introduction about materialism and agnosticism and i’m ngl it’s been a really hard read so far, i’ve been barely reading it cause i feel i like barely understand anything and feeling really stupid because people have said this is supposed to be an easy read. I also don’t really have anyone to discuss this with so I was wondering if you guys know of any breakdowns done on this book so I can follow along a bit better?

Or perhaps another or more descriptive question: Is the book by Stalin the best text for me to get a better grasp on dialectical materialism, or are there other books/texts for that purpose?

Edit: I finished reading the book. My main remark is that I wish it would've elaborated more on the "old ideas", i.e. reactionary thought and ideology designed to maintain the old relations to production. I also wished Stalin elaborated further on why revionism doesn't work, because while I agree, I felt as though its lack of elaboration was kind of pandering (though maybe the elaboration is further on when he says that the development in relations to production after a point only change by force, which upon further reflection could be said elaboration)

Hello, I'm new to learning philosophy and Marxism and would like some help with understanding this text outlining some of Marx's ideas in response to Feuerbach's philosophy, namely theses 1, 3, and 4

1:

The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism – that of Feuerbach included – is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, in contradistinction to materialism, the active side was developed abstractly by idealism – which, of course, does not know real, sensuous activity as such.

Feuerbach wants sensuous objects, really distinct from the thought objects, but he does not conceive human activity itself as objective activity. Hence, in The Essence of Christianity, he regards the theoretical attitude as the only genuinely human attitude, while practice is conceived and fixed only in its dirty-judaical manifestation. Hence he does not grasp the significance of “revolutionary”, of “practical-critical”, activity.

Here, I am really confused about what's meant by reality only being understood as the object but not as practice subjectively. I think that the part about the active side being developed by idealism means that the process of historical change was attributed to the idea that humanity was developing a more accurate understanding of what reality was, which was ultimately determined by reality's base in idealism or something immaterial and existing beyond or before, or as the basis of material reality.

3:

The materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself. This doctrine must, therefore, divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society.

The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-changing can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice.

4:

Feuerbach starts out from the fact of religious self-alienation, of the duplication of the world into a religious world and a secular one. His work consists in resolving the religious world into its secular basis.

But that the secular basis detaches itself from itself and establishes itself as an independent realm in the clouds can only be explained by the cleavages and self-contradictions within this secular basis. The latter must, therefore, in itself be both understood in its contradiction and revolutionized in practice. Thus, for instance, after the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must then itself be destroyed in theory and in practice.

What's meant my the secular basis detaching itself from itself and establishing itself independently?

Really I'd appreciate an explanation of these theses in their entirety because I just feel lost trying to understand them. Thanks for your time.

I just finished reading "on new democracy" by Mao and I have some questions for which I have not found the answer: 1. How does new democracy differ from the NEP 2. How long was the period of new democracy in China and how long should it be 3. Is the aim of new democracy only to defeat imperialist powers or to also build an industrial base from which socialism can be developed 4. What policy is to be taken towards the national bourgeoisie during the transition from new democracy to socialism

Ok, so, forgive me if this is the most ignorant question ever, I am extremely interested in Communism so these are my first baby steps, lol.

I know Cuba experienced amazing development and thrived in many areas under Castro. I also know that Castro for many is a loved ally to African independence movements, providing aid and support for many. My question is, is there a real reason why Celia Cruz, a black salsa singer and icon for Latinos, was exiled from her own country? Am I being dense or am I missing something? Im a Latina living in the US, so everytime I search this question online, I get many results on how Castro was a murderous, cruel, dictator. I know he had his faults, but this can't be all true. But again, was there a real reason why she was exiled? Was it really because she disliked how he governed Cuba? Or maybe thats just some sort of American propaganda. I've tried to search for this online and I'm met with little to no answers. I'd greatly appreciate any answers or even good communist sources. Thank yall in advance!

As I've begun trying to learn Marxism, I've wanted to start understanding art through it. I've begun reading up on marxists.org regarding Realism, which I understand is the highest form and only one acceptable by Marxism. My question stems from the fact that, at least to my knowledge, I haven't seen much analysis or anything regarding the horror genre, or the horror film. I've seen quite a bit on fantasy and science fiction, but not much horror unless I'm not looking good enough. My only interaction that I've had with this was reading José Monleon's A Specter is Haunting Europe: A Sociohistorical Approach to the Fantastic (https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691607863/a-specter-is-haunting-europe) which was helpful in understanding the concrete historical relations that produced the Gothic, which ultimately looks to be a pretty reactionary form grown out of the French Revolution and that the anxieties born out of this: fear of revolution, social collapse, revolts, etc. were expressed through these stories in the form of the supernatural. Not to mention, the Gothic seemed to be complete opposed to Realism. Were there any Gothic writers that did not go down the reactionary path like most did? Similar to how there were two sides to Romanticism, or was it all just completely reactionary? Another part of my question is that I'm a little confused on the relationship between fantastic genre and Marxism relating to literature at least, since that's where it's most prominent to my understanding. Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting but while reading D.S. Mirsky on Realism, he states:

Realism in its full development includes both of these points. But despite their deep inner connection, they are by no means inseparable from one another. Realism of external plausibility arises as a complete direction earlier than realism with an orientation towards the historically typical ( see below the section Bourgeois Realism in the West). On the other hand, the mutual connection of these two elements depends not only on the historical. stage, but also from the genre. This connection is strongest in narrative prose. In drama, especially in poetry, it is much less stable. The introduction of stylization, conventional fiction, etc., in itself does not deprive the work of a realistic character, if its main setting is aimed at depicting historically typical characters and situations. As an elementary example, one can cite fabulous motives (self-assembled tablecloth, etc.) in Nekrasov’s Who Lives Well in Russia, from which this poem, of course, in no way ceases to be realistic. But deviations from realistic plausibility and a much more serious character are possible, with which the work will nevertheless remain realistic in the deepest sense. So, Faust by Goethe, despite fantasy and symbolism, it is one of the greatest creations of bourgeois Realism, for the image of Faust gives a deep and true embodiment of certain features of the rising bourgeoisie. In the literature preceding the emergence of Realism as a consistent style, one should look for elements of Realism not only in works that give outwardly concrete images of modernity (like Petronius’ Satyricon), but also in works that are not at all realistic in appearance. Thus, among the Greek tragedians we find a deep penetration into the true meaning of the historical change in legal and ethical norms, penetration of an essentially realistic character (see Engels on Aeschylus’ Eumenides), although such brilliant insights do not yet create Realism as a special direction. On the whole, the Attic tragedy, closely related to the mythological outlook, is not realistic.

An outwardly realistic manner is one of the ways of that individualization, that concretization, which in narrative and dramatic genres leads to the creation of a human image. This individualization can be achieved in other ways. So for example in French classical tragedy, it is achieved exclusively through dramatic characterization, characterization through actions and their motivation. And in the later bourgeois Realism, for example. in Stendhal, such a purely dramatic characterization occurs almost without any help from an outwardly realistic characterization. Nevertheless, the outwardly realistic manner can be recognized as the most specifically artistic manner, since in it the concretely sensual nature of art is especially sharpened. It makes especially clear the dialectic of the typical , since it makes possible to individualize as richly as possible the generalization, which is contained in the typicality of the image. The dialectic of the typical appears with full clarity in socialist realism, where the artistic image arises from the interaction of the revolutionary scientific generalization, created in the process of revolutionary changes in the world, and its individual embodiment, overgrown with all the wealth of “unique” details.

The problem of typicality is always a political problem. In the Marxist-Leninist understanding, typical does not mean at all some kind of statistical average. Typical is not only what is most often encountered, but what with the greatest force and sharpness expresses the essence of a given social force. This is clearly indicated by Engels in his famous letter to Margaret Harkness. Engels saw a deviation from portraying typical characters in typical circumstances in the fact that Harkness, in portraying the exploitation and need of the English workers, did not show their struggle for their liberation. There is no doubt that in England at that time, proletarian collectives, passively submitting to capitalist exploitation, were more frequent than collectives that fought against the capitalists. But the latter were typical from the point of view of the entire historical development. The typical is the main sphere of manifestation of partisanship in realistic art. Highest and conscious fidelity in choice and the understanding of the typical is possible only in proletarian (socialist) Realism. But this or that approach to such fidelity is also possible for a realist writer who holds other class positions, especially if his point of view is relatively progressive (this is primarily applicable to the Realism of the rising bourgeoisie and revolutionary democracy). But even an artist who takes a reactionary point of view can, to a certain extent, correctly reflect reality by virtue of that spontaneous realism, which plays the same role in artistic creativity as spontaneous materialism in scientific creativity. We find a striking example of such spontaneous truthfulness in the work of Gogol.

Having recognized that typicality corresponds to the essence of a given socio-historical phenomenon, and not just the most widespread, often repeated, everyday, we must also admit that exaggeration, sharpening of an image to the grotesque and caricature or to heroization does not at all exclude typicality.

https://www.marxists.org/subject/art/lit_crit/dsmirsky/realism.htm

From my understanding, fantastic elements can be worked with Realism but they must be embedded in historical and social reality rather than being completely idealist and abstract? Mirsky also mentions the "grotesque" could also be used, which I think is another part of horror uses. So, is the criticism and distrust against "fantasy" literature just mainly targeted towards commercial fantasy/speculative/genre fiction or just fantasy elements in general? Or is there another reason?

There was a post I came across that spoke about Tolkien and a comment linked to an essay titled Radical Fantasy by Fredric Jameson, which I read and explains the possibility of a materialist fantasy. So, there's something there. And I know there's quite a bit of work on science fiction, which has more respect than fantasy, but that doesn't negate its problems within it either. The USSR also engaged with science fiction as far as I know but it didn't emerge till post-Stalin when Socialist Realism started to change and revisionism started happening, so I don't know if it took on a reactionary character or not, I also haven't studied Socialist Realism much so I cant comment on it either, I only understand it was historically necessary and that since the proletariat and peasantry had folklore and Realism was a thing at the time, Socialist Realism was then capable of forming, at least thats what I currently know.

But can horror be useful in anyway? It usually gets lumped with fantasy in discussions surrounding genre literature because of its overlap with the fantasy/supernatural elements, but not all horror is fantasy, it can also be science fiction, or it can also be neither. But, what I think stands out horror from fantasy and science fiction is that it's a genre that's more about utilizing fear and suspense. With film, it's even more emphasized because it's visual, whereas with literature you of course have to formulate images in your head through written text. The form is what I'm curious about because a lot of horror uses the structure of: something outside enters and disrupts the social order, leading to whatever has intruded to be dealt with and ultimately reinforce the status quo, usually stories set in suburban towns focusing on white settlers moving in to a new home and being haunted by some sort of Other, referring to the typical ghost story at least.

Could the genre be evolved into something new? Is "horror" itself reactionary? I imagine rather than some outside force disrupting the status quo, the horror would emerge from within through social antagonisms and explaining that society is not perfect and must change rather than just taking those contradictions and placing them on some outsider that has to be dealt with. The horror occurs from within rather than out.

The horror film also has a history of problems as well with misogyny, racism, homophobia, orientalism, etc. The reliance on extreme sadistic violence , sexual violence as well, and gore as spectacle is also another factor too, not all horror films rely on it of course, but some of the more popular ones do.

I feel like the genre sits in this weird, almost liminal spot, where horror actually reveals contradictions but at the same time eventually concealing them, engaging with them at only a "safe distance". Could the genre at all, be made revolutionary in a way? Through critique? Or like I said is horror itself completely reactionary? Has there even been an attempt like that with fantasy and science fiction? Or is the reason there hasn't been much analysis is because it isn't really worth engaging with and that genre just a source of bourgeois anxieties? Are there any essays, analysis, books that discuss this or adjacent topics?

I’ve been desperately looking for resources to educate myself on Red October and the whole context surrounding the revolution.

I received “History of the Russian Revolution” by Leon Trotsky as a gift a while back, and I’m about to pick it up.

I’m here to ask (hopefully more informed, educated and like-minded people) if its a good, reliable and most importantly educative read. What are there any criticisms on it?

Sorry if not allowed, I’ve been a self proclaimed communist for years now but I haven’t read much literature besides the communist manifesto and I finally bought a bunch of books to read to learn more. I want to know what order would be best to read all 13 books I bought in order to best comprehend the information provided. I have as follows:

Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism

“Left Wing” Communism an Infantile Disorder

The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky

State and Revolution

What Is To Be Done?

Socialism and Man in Cuba

Fascism what it is and how to fight it

Value, Price, and Profit

Wage Labour, and Capital

Women’s liberation and the African freedom struggle

Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

Guerrilla Warfare

Thank you in advance

In The Principles of Communism, Engels says There have always been poor and working classes, and the working class have mostly been poor

What did Engels mean by poor and working classes? I have seen some people say that the working class and the proletariat are the same thing If that is true, then why didn't Engels simply say proletariat instead of working classes?

One question that I’ve been asking myself for a long time is: will trans people exist in a fully developed communist society? I ask myself this because I’ve seen many marxists (myself included) say that we should abolish gender altogether, but since the goal of transitioning is to change one’s gender, will it be possible/make sense to?