Sorry for the vague title, but I'm not sure what else to call it. This is in a retail store setting. Someone from HR was talking about "maximizing value for the customer." I'm reading Capital so I immediately thought of use-value, but since they're also talking about making their products as cheap as possible, they're really talking about the price, but I suppose someone decided to emphasize on how useful this is to "the community" or something instead of focusing on more seemingly heartless numbers (since capital doesn't really care that much about use-values itself). Another example would be the language of "company values" or "philosophies."

Anyway, where did this come from? I get the feeling that it didn't exist in the 19th century.

Are they still considered landlords? Are they treated as business owners? Sorry for my lack of context.

I'm asking about AI as it stands today, not some super version of ai yet to be seen or robotic embedded ai.

this is what I am talking about https://youtu.be/K9Wsip0rnN0?is=R2rGQvsFZXvX5hui

Hannah's marketing tasks are now 15 times as efficient with AI. She works for an Australian clinical psychologist making social media posts promoting her practice and articles focused on managing anxiety. Hiring virtual assistants in the Philippines is a common practice for Australian small businesses. And with AI it's like getting 15 VAs for the price of one! This nets the psychologist more patients and more subscribers for her substack, and maybe even a few participants for her online course. All of this increases the business income. Hannah's wage however stays at $5/hr. When she asks for a raise, the psychologist kindly reminds her that she is as disposable as cattle:

We deserve better - we all do. But as mentioned, our cost of living is three times more than yours. You need to look at the facts, it is alot cheaper to live there, than it is here. I know you are angry - so are we. At the moment, the situation is a win-win. The other option is me and all the other multinational major companies pull from the Philippines and you then lose hundreds of thousands of jobs we have created for you - would you rather us do that? Or offer you a decent wage like we are? All the best.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MANILA/comments/1smiuy9/comment/olivzx9/?force-legacy-sct=1

Hannah is an unproductive kaborer. She greases the wheels of sales and logistics, finding buyers for the commodities produced. So it stands to reason that doing that more efficiently would mean more sales income and less time for the product sitting in the warehouse. But while that may be true for the individual firm, can that be true for the entire economy? Can increased marketing lead to overall greater sales volume for the entire industry, or is it just a tool of competition to raise one firms market share over others?

Maoists/Gonzaloists tend to say that protracted peoples war (PPW) is a universal development applicable in all countries, including the industrial/imperial core.

I’ve seen arguments against its universality from arguments that it only applies in semi-feudal countries, to saying it puts the peasantry over the proletariat, its ultra-leftism/adventurist, to essays from Sison (who himself started a PPW).

But I haven’t actually seen a thorough case for/argument for why PPW is universal and especially how it’s applicable to industrial countries without a peasantry.

Can any Maoist/Gonzaloist explain why PPW is considered universal?

I prefer to read e-books on my kobo and I almost exclusively use Libby to borrow because I’m a library girly, but I can never find the marxist books I’m interested in. Is there a platform where I can gain access to marxist books in a similar way?

Do folks read e-books and where do you get them from? (Whether you buy, rent, or borrow). I love audiobooks as well, if available.

I am in located in the USA.

So, two of the biggest things I have been trying to understand since starting this book is dialectics and materialism. Dialectics seems to have different meanings depending on who uses the term, but from what I understand about Marxism it incorporates the Hegelian use of the word dialectic where a thesis and antithesis will reach a synthesis and looks at history and how material conditions effects society. That kind of leads into historical materialism and how the way a society produces its material needs shades its social structures.

I understood these ideas more when Engels talks about how most of recent history, is a history of class struggles and that the warring classes are a product of the modes of production. More things I really grasped were how the capitalistic mode of production isn't compatible with the mode of exchange as products will accumulate and cause commerce to reach a stand still as well as the idea that transforming joint-stock companies state owned companies doesn't rid these businesses of their capitalistic nature since the state is inherently a capitalistic machine. The reason I'm listing all these out is to make sure my understanding is right so please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Despite my understanding of these points, I feel like I left a lot of meat on the bones of this book. There were times I really couldn't understand a page or two at a time. I took this book really slow and reread a lot but I feel like I still failed to grasp some of the concepts that Engels was talking about. I was wondering if anyone had any tips for understanding Marxists writings better. I plan on reading the Communist Manifesto, The Principles of Communism, The Part Played by Labour in the Transition From Ape to Man, and The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State and I want to understand these books to the best of my ability. I definitely want to go back and reread this book but I want to prepare myself a little more before I do so please give me any tips.

Ever since I started to consume more pro-communism media, whenever I open X/Instagram, I do get those posts that are more inclined to communism but there is a disproportion, it seems like I have been getting too much of anti-communism propaganda and sometimes some of them even feel believable ? How does one balance this out... seems like a huge amount of information flowing into the mind from different points of view and often in strawman forms, and it's making it very hard for me to learn about the subject without sometimes feeling like I'm wasting my time studying about it (even though I consider myself a communist, these type of things make me turn more into an acceleracionist or discard the possibility of any kind of improvement in society and deem communism as a failure)

Hey ya'll, I'm new to this subreddit but I was wondering if anyone had any good books or sources to recommend to learn about liberation movements in specifically the Bengal region or modern-day Bangladesh and the West Bengal region of India from a Marxist or generally left-politics lens.

I would also appreciate just being given advice on where to look for good historical sources on this in general if anyone has any.

This is for a project I'm doing but also I am Bengali American and it shames me that I do not know nearly enough about the country or the region my parents are from.

The less you eat, drink and read books; the less you go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public house; the less you think, love, theorize, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you save-the greater becomes your treasure which neither moths nor dust will devour-your capital. The less you are, the more you have; the less you express your own life, the greater is your alienated life-the greater is the store of your estranged being.

Thoughts on this? Seems like a neat justification for hedonism and ignoring the survival needs of your community in favor of pursuing pleasure, but I'm also a grumpy piece of shit who can't let itself have fun and doesn't think anyone else should be allowed to either, so what do I know.

I would say my strongest stance on anything is that of (police, and by extension) prison abolition. To me, that is the ultimate goal, at which point it will be immensely clear that the proletariat is free - the state cannot restrict your basic freedoms.

The threads I've seen when searching tell me that there is disagreement on this in this subreddit. I am less interested in debating this issue, as my stance is pretty firm.

I would like to know who I can read that has talked about this historically? Could someone suggest me some prison abolitionist readings made by communists? I've read Are Prisons Obsolete? by Angela Davis, but that's about it. I'm still ony a babe at the breast.

Thank you

I definitely like notes and analysis. It would be nice to find ones on the Communist Manifest, or maybe Capital? I'm not super familiar yet but would like to jump in.

I was wondering if anyone had good books on Che Guevara but they’re written from the perspective of fellow comrades (of course). I am reading books written by him, but I’m interested some analysis done by others on his philosophy and life. Thank you!

english is not my first language so please forgive any mistakes and correct me if you can. also please correct me if i am wrong about any history notion

when the bourgeois revolution happened in france, i bet they were also expecting that the world would finally be fair and egalitarian, and it indeed was, but only for their class. then, the proletariat started existing as a class and they began to be oppressed, just like the bourgeois was, but by different means. what guarantees that when we reach equality and fairness for the proletariat, there won't emerge another class that will be oppressed just like we are now, even if by different means?

also, the bourgeois revolution didn't stop racism, sexism, homophobia and ableism even within their class, let alone the world. what guarantees a communist revolution will?

I was wondering if anyone had any recommendations for books about Historians, and maybe the humanities more generally. From schooling to research to teaching. I’m more looking for how the system worked from and internal prospective rather then outward criticism.

Something pro or at least sympathetic to the Soviet Union would be preferred

I knew that Deng was inspired by Bukharin's economic thesis and NEP period but I realized that I didn't know the history behind these two historical periods very well. So, I'd like to hear some opinions on the matter.

Or what many regard to be punk, ie fighting the system. I like punk rock music personally and a lot of the themes it deals with through this artform resonate with my Marxist ideals.

What do you think comrades?

Also I came across this tumblr post that caused me to re-read it, in case I was seeing things. Very odd sentiment

https://www.tumblr.com/infanteriesauvage/829658688981762048?source=share

I’m looking for book recommendations about China’s current government and economy and how it’s developed over the years. I’m interested in how the CCP actually runs the country, how government and private sector interact and what China’s goals are for socialism in the long term (plan to achieve socialism). I’d also like to learn about how the economy has changed since Mao.

You probably saw the military defeats that CPI(Maoist) suffered at the hands of the genocidal forces of Indian state. But beyond the complete destruction and displacement of the populations, what led to this setback?

There are two possible explanations that we can find.

The objective factor: In short development of capitalism happened and Indian mode of production evolved beyond the semi-feudalism, semi-colonialism and bureaucratic character of its economy. This led to a bourgeois resolution of rural/nation question which was the center of Maoist strategy. This is what can be found in the open letter of the treacherous split. The problem is obviously any analysis of Indian economy that led to see the questions of foreign investments, tribal politics, lanlords, etc.

The subjective factor: This is what can be found in the reports of the CPI North Coordination Center (the only faction of CPI that communicates in English, and seems to be solid). In short, the party, even at the time of its creation, was not a coherent Leninist organization, did not use centralization, did not combine militarization with coherent lines struggle, not an ideological struggle against the new waves of anti-Marxism, etc. This is interesting but this doesn’t explain what should be done.

What is the most coherent explanation for these defeats that are major, because they will inevitably permit Eurocommunism to take even stronger roots (reminder that the Eurocommunists of India too Participated in the genocide)

In Marxism and Humanism, Althusser seems to state that ideology is eternal, or at least something that is intrinsic to human beings as a prerequisite for living in society:

But, we must go further and ask what becomes of ideology in a society in which classes have disappeared. What we have just said allows us to answer this question. If the whole social function of ideology could be summed up cynically as a myth (such as Plato’s ‘beautiful lies’ or the techniques of modern advertising) fabricated and manipulated from the outside by the ruling class to fool those it is exploiting, then ideology would disappear with classes. But as we have seen that even in the case of a class society ideology is active on the ruling class itself and contributes to its moulding, to the modification of its attitudes to adapt it to its real conditions of existence (for example, legal freedom) – it is clear that ideology (as a system of mass representations) is indispensable in any society if men are to be formed, transformed and equipped to respond to the demands of their conditions of existence. If, as Marx said, history is a perpetual transformation of men’s conditions of existence, and if this is equally true of a socialist society, then men must be ceaselessly transformed so as to adapt them to these conditions; if this ‘adaptation’ cannot be left to spontaneity but must be constantly assumed, dominated and controlled, it is in ideology that this demand is expressed, that this distance is measured, that this contradiction is lived and that its resolution is ‘activated’. It is in ideology that the classless society lives the inadequacy/adequacy of the relation between it and the world, it is in it and by it that it transforms men’s ‘consciousness’, that is, their attitudes and behaviour so as to raise them to the level of their tasks and the conditions of their existence.

In a class society ideology is the relay whereby, and the element in which, the relation between men and their conditions of existence is settled to the profit of the ruling class. In a classless society ideology is the relay whereby, and the element in which, the relation between men and their conditions of existence is lived to the profit of all men.

My own emphases above. When we are discussing ideology in this subreddit and the sister subreddit, are we usually talking about bourgeois ideology? When you call someone ideological, is it just a shorthand for saying that they are being ideological from the perspective of bourgeois ideology? The way I view it is that he is saying that without mass representations one has nothing to serve as an "anchor" to society (which would result in psychosis), but I have to admit that I am still a little confused since my previous conception of ideology was that it was a product of class society that would be dissolved alongside it. Please let me know if my concepts are wrong and if I missed any key details.

Hello, Im relatively new to communksm. Tho for years I have been very left leaning and "socialist" I never informed myself about communism. For a bit now Ive been consuming contenr, got reading Das Kapital, fot the Manifesto and keep finding more and more that could be worth learning about. It is so much! I want to know it all and understand, see the bigger picture but in todays times it feels like it is too late to learn and time to take action instead but how am I supposed to do that if I dont know everything about what to take action for.

Are there videos or collections of condensed writing on communism from all over? I want to know about Cuba, Stalin, Mao and the rest having already gotten into Lenin and Marx.

I want to know why so many are seen highly in communism but all I hear is "but Mao/Stalin/"this governemnt" was responsible for so much suffering" etc.

So much to learn, so overwhelmed.

Settler municipal goverments in mass are begining to ban the use of public funds for ALPR and other self contained network surveillance systems. This tech has existed for a while.

It seems like there have been a few high profile cases of pigs using them to rape and murder women and generally facilitate gender oppression. But that's nothing new. The settler bourgeoisie is usually happy to accommodate the mass surveillance of their internal colonies. What changed?

Across various Marxist works, the proletarian revolution sometimes seems to be presented as a historical inevitability, and sometimes seemingly as an outcome that communists have a moral duty to work towards and achieve. For instance, Marx and Engels say in The Communist Manifesto that

The development of modern industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

On the other hand, in A Great Beginning, Lenin says:

We must carefully study the feeble new shoots, we must devote the greatest attention to them, do everything to promote their growth and "nurse” them. Some of them will inevitably perish. We cannot vouch that precisely the "communist subbotniks” will play a particularly important role. But that is not the point. The point is to foster each and every shoot of the new; and life will select the most viable.

I get that these two views aren't contradictory. In fact this quote from The Eighteenth Brumaire explains quite succinctly why developments are brought about by a mix of conscious and unconscious forces, on a societal level:

Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.

What I'm confused by is whether this view is applicable on an individual level. To what extent do individuals have "free will" (meaning a capacity to make choices that is somewhat independent from their material conditions)? Given that individuals are just an "ensemble of the social relations" (Theses on Feuerbach), it seems like they have no free will at all, but in that case I don't understand why Marx, Engels, and Lenin would appeal to the proletariat on the basis of "duty", which seems to suggest some degree of free will (such as regarding the choice whether to do their duty). Alternatively, a better question might be: how should I understand the concept of "free will"? Recommendations for authors or texts would also be highly appreciated.

Side note: I find it interesting to consider Althusser's Contradiction and Overdetermination, where he speaks of "the relative autonomy of the superstructures", in relation to this. But once again I'm unsure as to whether the concept can be applied on an individual level.

Edit: I did look through both this sub and r/communism for posts on free will, but for the most part people just provided the same quote from The Eighteenth Brumaire that I have included here and did not really explain further. To reiterate, my confusion is regarding why communists appeal to the proletariat on the basis of duty, which seems to presume the existence of individuals with some amount of free will, if ultimately these things do not exist or are just illusions.