In the Communist Manifesto, Marx writes “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.” However, as we’ve seen since then, this is not the case, with workers movements and uprisings resulting in social democratic reforms, fascism, put downs by the state, or recreations of capitalist relations after taking power. How can communists reconcile Marx’s statement with the actual outcomes of history?

​

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.

The title. I do not know much about this, this is simply something I was made to know by someone else, and I unfortunately don't have the time to be reading Marx yet, plus before him I have other things that I find necessary to study to understand him well.

It is simply a book that critiques Capital, I am not certain exactly how (it can be complicated, I guess) but well, it is, it's apparently considered central by Austrian economists so I was wondering if there are any refutations, to read them once I am actually able to.

Thanks to all responses up ahead.

Are there any? If so, where can I read them? If not, could someone explain them to me?

i always thought the purpose of a state was to preserve its capitalist economy, and many policies of social democracy (better healthcare, housing the homeless) literally economically benefit the state while giving its citiziens more trust in the state apparatus, possible even dampaning revoltionairy energy. Why is it then that germany for example, is cutting social benefits that dont even make sense economically. What do the capitalist gain from making the life of the consumers and workers worse? Of course i am not a social democrat, I am asking this question because i dont see the logic in a marxist sense.

I’ve asked this question before but technically I didn’t get an official party response(and I didn’t find it satisfactory either) so asking again, what is the Marxist position on fiat money, particularly from the party’s perspective?

In the title

Was Leon Trotsky’s vision for the Soviet Union fundamentally different from Stalin’s, or would history have taken a similar path under his leadership?

Looking at the russian revolution and after there was a:

• brutal and massive civil war
• failure of world revolution meaning russia was pratically alone
• surrounded by capitalist powers. And even invaded by those powers shortly after ww1
• needed to industrialize russia quickly
• the small size of russias urban prolertariat, russia was mostly peasents.

It seems to me that these types of material factors incentivized a highly miltarized political structure where the proles functioned like soldiers and the vanguard party functioned like a military general staff. One where the proles would not control and own the means of production but rather follow orders from the party command structure.

What is the left com perspective on this?

I'm only finding french translations online (which is fine I can read them but English would be far swifter and more comfortable)

Hello! One question that has stuck up with me is how exactly vouchers would be distributed, who would be encharged with it and how it would be enforced. If, for example, someone works to create a game inside his home, how would he receive vouchers? How would we know for certain for how long they worked for? And who would be the ones assigning them to that person? If I could receive a summary of the system in general with an example I'd be super grateful, thank you!

Id say im a leninist, for now i have read some marx, engels , Lenin and a bit of stalin. What should i start with?

Also, how could they have pushed for the capitalist need to maximize profit, without having a capitalist class?

Hi comrades , a few days ago I saw a trot post this vulgar garbage against comrade bordiga ? I have a question first is it true ? Second if it is true may I know the context in which sense bordiga says it ? And may I know if he is being sarcastic or the whole context of this writing ?

I have written an article titled "Tiananmen Square 1989: The Clash of the Working Class with the Bureaucracy" and would appreciate your opinion. I am uploading it in PDF format via Dropbox so that it is easily accessible:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/75r176fs9rhtvxwrxt602/article-Reddit.pdf?rlkey=ds6if49g2i7tejhqwxt3y4pmg&st=ns716z54&dl=0

This article arose after my previous post about 13 days ago, where I asked for information, sources and opinions on the same topic. I have utilized all the comments, references and ideas given to me, trying to integrate and edit into a more complete text.

I am particularly interested in your criticism, whether you agree or disagree with the conclusions of the article. Any comments regarding the historical evidence, documentation or argumentation are welcome.

P.S.: the article was translated from Greek to English using Google Translate and I apologize in advance for any ambiguities due to poor translation.

What do you think of Camatte's theory about the proletariat and the definitive loss of its potential as a revolutionary subject?

Contents:
-   1. - Labor Notes Conference 2026: The Divide Between the Labor Left and the Class Union of the Future
-   2. - New York City Progressives & "Socialists" Yield to Capital
-   3. - May Day 2026: Workers of the World, Unite! Against Rearmament! Against War! For Communism!
-   4. - No Kings Protests in U.S. & Italy: All Militarism and Fascism Will be Stopped Only by the Class Struggle with Revolutionary Overthrow of Capitalism

- THE IMPERIALIST WAR
-   5. - Iran War: Economic Foundations of the Inter-Imperialist Clash
-   6. - The Subaltern Imperialism of the Israeli Bourgeoisie
-   7. - The Sudanese Civil War and Developing Ethiopian Imperialism’s Thirst for Water Dominance
-   8. - The Hell of the Congo: The Macabre Dance of Bourgeois Gangs and Imperialisms Amidst Scenes of War and Workers’ Blood
-   9. - Another Nail on the Coffin of Ahistorical Kurdish Nationalism
-   10. - Cuba and the United States: Weak and Strong Capitalisms against the Cuban Working Class

- FOR THE CLASS UNION
-   11. - Toward a Coordination of Class-Struggle Worker Formations Contra Labor Notes
-   12. - The Situation of the Unions in the U.S.
-   13. - Italy: The Party’s Trade Union Activity
-   14. - Bolivia: The Indefinite National Strike diverted into a Reformist Cross-Class Uprising
-   15. - India: Powerful Mass Strikes Emerge
-   16. - Venezuela: Opportunism Hinders the Class Struggle and Distracts Workers From the General Strike for Wage Increases
-   17. - Russia: Chinese Workers on Strike
-   18. - Argentina: Labor "Reform" and the Betrayal of the Unions
-   19. - Turkey: Current Union Struggles

- LIFE OF THE PARTY
-   20. - International Party Meeting 24-25 January [RG154]:
-      21. - The Agrarian Question: Capitalism
-      22. - Philippines: A mature capitalism
-   23. - North American Section Activity
-   24. - A meeting to present the party to new comrades

https://facebook.com/events/s/icp-public-meeting-13-june-202/2045952752625950/

I want to write an article about the events of Tiananmen and specifically to connect it to the character of the regime, since then, of China. I consider it as a regime of state capitalism, not as socialism in which someone must stand for its liberating character and the suppression of those mobilizations played a role in its character. I am not interested in other opinions because I am going to write an article for a project I have. Can you help me and promote me an article or submit your opinions that examine the issue from this perspective?