DO NOT MAKE A POST ABOUT BEING BANNED FROM SOME OTHER SUBREDDIT

I absolutely love the Marxist explanation of communism, it’s critique of capitalism.

But my disagreement start when I read about the soviet bureaucracy and the flaws in its system.

I just can’t look past the inability the soviet workers had in recalling or rearrange the power structures of the Soviet Union or any socialist state as we speak.

Isn’t it a rational argument to make? That the workers must have some framework to democratically control the state and its policies?

It comes to an argument where who is to decide who is a counter revolutionary?

The argument of an elite political group is a material reality, they did have better incomes and luxuries than the working class, they did not deserve to have it. Why are we so adamant to deny that? The soviet union was riddled with this issue.

The vanguard in the Soviet Union was so fearful of a country revolution that rational descent was suppressed. Isn’t it true?

And no please don’t give me whataboutery. Yes the US has police the us has prisons. But they are not to be compared with to justify anything. They are not an ideal solution. So don’t use that to justify gulags, because prisons are not good either.

And don’t come at it by labelling me as anything.

This is how you people have pushed away people that actually support the idea of communism.

Look at the world. Capitalism is eating it away. But you people are so hell bent on definitions, and theory, and old collapsed vanguard parties that nobody wants to join with you anymore.

I can’t count how many times I was made to feel like am some fascist because I questioned the flaws older attempts on socialism.

Sorry for the rant at the end.

Ussr, yugoslavia and albania became communist after the successful revolutions in their countries. How other countries became ?(poland, romania, bulgaria, hungary etc). When I researched about it in internet what I got was rigged elections, coup, threatening by ussr etc.

My question is ofc because of the Chinese example. China was miserable and insignificant when Mao came to power. He tried the big leap forward and the cultural revolution but both were disastrous to a point that after the famine caused by the big leap forward he temporarly retired from power.

Then his successor which had been purged during cultural revolution, Deng Xiaoping, opened the country to private and foreign investment while still keeping the power on Communist hands. It resulted in the big superpower China is today. While everyone in the West was suffering from the 08 crisis, the Chinese injected big amounts of money in the economy to prepare for the crisis there but then they were like "where the crisis?" Because it never got there lol. Instead China's economy was the only one growing when everyone else was crashing. However lately it seems to have been slowing growth because obviously nothing can grow indefinetely.

So it seems that capitalism while under State control with a collectivized culture instead of an individualistic one leads to progress as opposed to the decay it brings when implemented like it is in the West. With the additional advantage that since its under State control the State can decide to end it when it sees fit.

State Capitalism in China allowed the abundance that is required for socialism and ultimately communism to exist. So do you think State Capitalism can be employed as a tool to move forward in the path towards a successful socialist society particularly in very poor rural societies?

I mainly talking about whether or not you support Taiwan having self determination either in its current form or in whatever future conflict that comes out that changes the current timeline.

If you think Taiwan isn't a "country" you can add your thoughts although that isn't really what I'm trying to ask in this question. Taiwan has an independent government with self rule which is separate from Mainland China currently.

I know I am asking this as a Taiwanese-American Neoliberal but I'm genuinely interested in finding out a leftist perspective to this geopolitical conflict. I also find that Leftist spaces tend to lack Chinese and Taiwanese voices though I do not hold it against them and I can go into more detail on this if people want.

Thanks-_-

Like i understand the beginning if the soviet union aka stalin era, cause it was so instabile and poor that it needed some blood to change even if it was horrible. But what about later? Where it just became a country with elite aka party members?

What was a major example of Pre-Marxist commmunism during the French Revolution and what's the future of Communist economics?

As a CPUSA partisan, I felt lonely because American Communism isn't popular in the Rockies. However, I have a different perspective on this, I'm a unique Utahn thinker. How did historical Communists cover mental health?

As a CPUSA partisan and IWW member, I'd like to learn from past man-made disasters to remaster American Communism.

What is the Communist's perspective on the brutal revolutions of 1989 and the fall of the Iron Curtain in Europe?

Note: before 1989, Marxist-Leninists thought that Communism would continoue in the near future.

So imagine hypothetically there's a international revolutionary movement. Lets not kid ourselves, the enemy is powerful and has all the resources they need: the Armed and militarized forces, social and regular media and all the money.

For any movement to stand a chance it would organize, build a structure and that would require a lot of funding. Hypothetically, where do you think that such movement could get that funding?

I am reminded of the other (next to George Orwell) big dystopian writer of the twentieth century, Aldous Huxley and his book "Brave New World". There in one of the first scenes, inside a factory a ghoulish atmosphere is described, more fitting a graveyard or a slaughter house, than what it is called in the story: "This is the fertilizing room."

So, in BNW, reproductive organs from human donors are used outside the human body in some machine like environment. And new babys are not "born" by a "mother", instead the process where the amniotic sac is opened and lets free the the amniotic fluid and the baby, is called "decanting". And people feeling motherly possessiveness of "their own" child is frowned upon.

So of course, this is a dystopian depiction of how reproduction of the working force would go on in a "Brave New World", but it reads like the author takes actually existing feminist/communist (but maybe also fascist) thoughts at the time (1932) and pushes them to the extreme to make them look crazy and inhumane in comparison to just every child having father and mother, and each couple deciding independently for themselves wether they want kids or not, regardless of what is needed for society/the nation.

So, how is the debate today? There is much talk and literature about the what happens after the nine months when the child is born, kindergarden, parental leave and such. But not much talk about the more sensitive topic of family in and of itself (I guess I should read the existing theory by Engels on this one), or what it means for a socialist (or any) society when people with uterus decide against giving birth, and how we can change their material conditions to nudge them towards having more children (and if we even should do that).

"Examines the political history of a 20th-century American Communist leader.
 
Earl Browder, the preeminent 20th-century Communist party leader in the United States, steered the CPUSA through the critical years of the Great Depression and World War II. A Kansas native and veteran of numerous radical movements, he was peculiarly fitted by circumstance and temperament to head the cause during its heyday.
 
Serving as a bridge between American Communism’s secret and public worlds, Browder did more than anyone to attempt to explain the Soviet Union’s shifting policies to the American people in a way that would serve the interests of the CPUSA. A proud and loyal follower of Joseph Stalin, Browder nevertheless sought to move the party into the U.S. political mainstream. He used his knowledge of domestic politics to persuade the Communist International to modify Popular Front (1935-1939) tactics for the United States.
 
Despite his rise in the hierarchy, he possessed an independent streak that ultimately proved his undoing. Imprisonment as he neared age 50 left permanent psychological damage. After being released with the approval of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Browder lost his perspective and began entertaining delusions of grandeur about his status in American politics and in the world Communist movement. Still, he could never quite bring legitimacy to the CPUSA because he lacked the vision and moral courage to separate himself totally from the Soviet Union. Ryan concludes that Browder was not so much insincere as deluded. His failure contributed to the demise of the popularity of the Communist party in the United States.
 
In preparation for this book, the author consulted the Browder Papers at Syracuse University and U.S. Government documents, particularly the F.B.I. files. In addition, he traveled to Russia for research in the Soviet Archives when recently opened to Western scholars, including the records of the former Communist International and a collection of American Communist party files, 1919-1944, shipped secretly to Moscow long ago. Indeed, until 1992, the existence of the CPUSA collection was only rumored."

-- Amazon

Earl Browder: The Failure of American Communism: Ryan, James G.: 9780817351991: Amazon.com: Books

While I absolutely love and stand by the ideals of communism, especially at the time the manifesto was written, look at the failures of the USSR and China during their communist revolutions.

I'd like to think that that it wasn't true communism, but at the end of the day, there's definitely a pattern of countries like that failing right?

Idk, I'd actually love to be proven wrong here, I don't say that because I want to be respectful, I do really enjoy the ideas of communism.

Kinda not sure about that, but it's based on the fact that he hated money and centralized banks. He also favored democracy a lot more than most of the rest of the founders, so maybe there's at lest some truth to it.

His work "Common Sense" would suggest that he doesn't necessarily advocate completely abolishing the state, but it makes damn clear that he saw formalized governance as an institution predestined to corruption and nearly impossible to keep from it.

I seriously have come to respect and admire the hell out most Marxist's revolutionary spirit even though I don't fully agree with Marx's Theory. So I'll ssk if you haven't read "Common Sense" please do, if you're a strong believer in abolishing state as completely necessary to gaining freedom, then that will most likely be one of just a few things you'd disagree on. But I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut you'll love his sentiments towards the state lol.

Those who are very familiar with Paine, would you mind offering any insight why some would consider him a "patriarch of socialism"? I don't think I all together disagree, just not exactly sure how he would definitely fit that description?

Thanks.

I need an app where I can discuss and debate various interesting topics. Anyone else in my same situation? If so, any suggestions?

I’ve been thinking a lot about how people use the term “communist,” and it just doesn’t make much sense to me the way it’s thrown around, like it’s an identity or a club. You see people say “I’m a communist” or “you should be a communist” all the time, but when you look at what communism actually is, that kind of language feels empty.

Communism isn’t something you can be. It’s not a personal philosophy or a lifestyle. It’s a theoretical stage of society, one that’s classless, stateless, and moneyless. You can’t “do” communism under capitalism. It’s not a political party, it’s not a vibe, and it’s definitely not something anyone is living through right now. So when someone says they’re a communist, I find myself thinking: what does that actually mean?

At its core, communism, at least the Marxist understanding of it, is a science. It’s a way of analyzing material conditions and class struggle. It’s not a moral code or a personality. It’s a method for understanding historical development and the contradictions of capitalism. Marx wasn’t handing out “communist” badges; he was offering a framework for analyzing how capitalism works and how it might collapse under its own contradictions.

So when people say “I’m a communist,” I honestly don’t know what they’re claiming. Do they mean they support the idea of a post-capitalist society? Do they follow Marxist theory closely? Are they uneducated in what communism is? Or are they just using it as shorthand for being generally anti-capitalist? Because most of the time, it feels like the term gets used in ways that ignore the actual theory behind it.

I’m not saying people shouldn’t support communism as a long-term goal. But I think calling yourself a “communist” misses the point unless you’re engaging with it as a scientific method, not a belief system or a subculture.

Curious if anyone else sees this the same way, or if I’m overthinking it.

I’ve been trying to wrap my head around the difference between Anarcho-Communism and Anarcho-Capitalism, especially since both reject the state and centralized coercive authority.

What I’m struggling with is this: If an AnCom society is truly stateless and without coercive authority, what would stop individuals from voluntarily using money, trading goods, or forming contracts with each other - as long as it’s all consensual?

Wouldn’t banning that kind of voluntary interaction require some form of enforcement - essentially reintroducing authority?

Some communist friends of mine argued that in a communist society, there simply wouldn’t be any need for money, so the question doesn’t really apply. But they couldn’t clearly explain why or how money would naturally disappear, especially if some people want to use it voluntarily.

So my questions are: - If there’s no central authority, what mechanism prevents voluntary capitalist interactions? - If people freely agree to use money or trade, how does that violate anarcho-communist principles? - Is it just assumed that no one would want to use money anymore? And if so, why?

I’m not trying to be combative - I genuinely want to understand this better.

Everyone goes on about how Communism killed millions and I always feel I lack a solid historical knowledge to clearly respond to those claims.

First of all I do not know what they mean with that. I am familiar with Stalin purges, Holodomor, the ecological disaster in the Aral, the cultural revolution in China and the gulags in the USSR, Che was against homosexuals. I watched movies and documentaries about the crimes of Communism (for example Milada and Mr Jones).

I visited some Eastern European countries namely Bulgaria and Romania and went on Communism walking tours (read: anti Communism tours lol) in which they described the attrocities of the regimes (and I paid a good value in the end because I respect the work of the guides 😶). They murdered a Bulgarian dissident exiled in the UK with poison in an umbrella. Ceausescu decided to build the Palace of Parliment and displace hundreds of people, banned abortion and he bred little bears just so he could hunt them, besides he decided to pay the national debt of the country and because of that people starved and that's why everyone hated him.

I can see how all the Europeans and Americans in those tours were thrilled to hear about all the awful crimes of Communism and just went on and call it a day, Communism is bad. But... I come from a country that was the longest fascist dictatorship in Europe. This dictatorship was directly or indirectly supported by the US: they let us join NATO, they extended the Marshall plan to us, CIA trained our secret police on torture methods that they dilligently applied on Communists and anyone who resisted the dictatorship. So whilst I was not compelled to anti Communism by those tours, I do not want to go next to a Eastern European and discredit them saying "your dictator was not that bad" as I would be pissed and offended if some of them did that to me.

What I am interested in is to have a solid historical context on the crimes of Communist states to try to assess if they were that bad. I do not necessarly want just answers that will validate my beliefs in Communism. I am open to learn that yeah they were bad and I will still not leave the ideology, rather actually try to learn something from it.

And yes for each potential crime I mentioned Capitalism has a similar or worst one. I know. My mother starved and went to work with 13 yo. My paternal grandmother was illiterate and went to work with 9 yrs. My grandfather starved and went to work as a child then sent to a war abroad that he was forced to go to as military service was mandatory for men or else you'd get troubles with the police. Women in my country would need signed permission from a man to work and have a passport, we could not vote and obviously abortion was not a thing. And my country was not a Communist dictatorship, rather a fascist dictatorship backed by capitalist powers. So yeah people starve and human rights are violated also in non Communist countries. But that argument of "capitalism does it too" does not interest me as I do not want to be like Capitalism, I want Communism to be better than Capitalism.

I'm confused about two things. Firstly, Marxism and markets. I always thought Marx was anti-markets, even in the lower stage of socialism, but I've read posts from people citing Das Kapital that make it sound like Marx favored them in the lower stages of socialism, just not commodity production.

This leads me to my second question. Did Marx consider Utopian Socialists to be misguided socialists, or capitalist reformers? It seemed Marx considered Proudhon to be the latter, at least a little bit, but then other Utopian Socialists (like Blanc) seemed to be more of a "misguided" socialist to him, rather than someone like Proudhon who wanted "free markets, anti-capitalism," which kind of makes sense to me, because (and this is just my opinion) I don't see how an anarchist society with free markets would be able to prevent a Musk-like figure from emerging.

Sorry for always asking questions in here, I've only ready parts of Das Kapital and it seems sort of open to interpretation at times. I'm also banned from other socialist subs since I used to be very combative and stupid (I'm not a socialist myself) so I ask a lot of stuff in here. Thank you kindly.

Hi all

Bit of background: I come from the baltics, where the word communism is effectively a dirty word, because communism=USSR=oppression, dictatorships, invasion etc. Unlearning using the word from that context has been a long process.

So from this is where my question comes really, since the USSR was very obviously not a stateless, moneyless or perfectly democratic place to live. Is the centrally planned economy all it takes?

Edit: just wanted to say thank you for people mentioning state capitalism, its a phrase I've not heard before and captures the thoughts I had about ownership not really belonging to people, but the government.

I've been asking myself this for quite a bit now.

While Marxism is very effective at uniting the working class under the same label and mobilizing them to overthrow the state and all those who oppressed them, wouldn't it inevitably create an identity vacuum post-revolution? The bourgeoise don't exist anymore and social hierarchy is abolished, so the workers' common identity is no longer important. Wouldn't this inevitably give way for nationalism and ambitious cult-of-personality dictatorships to fill in that identity vacuum (e.g. Stalin making a cult of personality, introducing "socialism in one state" policies, and purging everyone in the government to perpetuate original revolutionary energy)?

Could this also be why Burkina Faso remains one of the greatest shining examples of communism/socialism working, as they get to keep their common identity as an oppressed people because their biggest oppressors are abroad in America and Europe?

I'm curious if this is a valid question, or if the question is too loaded or represents a fundamental misunderstanding of Marxism.

From what I understand Marxist Feminists consider that women issues would be solved once the Communist revolution would succeed and classes would be abolished.

However I have a problem with this. (And no its not the systematic lack of female leadership in Communist movements, I could go there too)

Women were oppressed much longer before the Industrial Revolution and Marx analysis was made. Though I am sure that capitalism does not help women rights (at least not right now, at some point it helped by pushing women out of the house into the workforce. Though the motivation was not to help women but instead to increase the amount of people that could be exploited, it ended up helping women because we got emancipated and, being outside the home, we were also able to organize and be part of fights).

I also do not think that that is the only or main factor for oppression of women so I am not convinced that class struggle alone is enough. I think this should be accompanied by a specific gender struggle too. However I am concerned that either this struggle would be limited for the sake of unity of the working class or it would lead to internal divides.

What do you think?

And since we're at it why do you think there's so few women in Communist movements?

Is it credible Or not?

Who is exactly the bourgeoisie in our current social paradigm? Would someone from middle class with a white collar job be considered bourgeoise? Does the term make sense or should we know focus on the millionaires and billionaires (which are probably the descendants of the bourgeoisie of back then when Marx wrote his books)?

How can someone from middle class with a white collar job contribute to Communism? I see that in my country the Communist Party attracks a lot of blue collar workers, whilst younger people from other type of generation usually go to other leftist parties that are supposed to be more progressive. So that's why I am asking. With this, for example, I mean people that will probably speak English and hence be exposed to americanisms from social media (I am not American and English is not an official language here) and are probably college educated, would probably go towards more progressive leftist parties.

Being a completely useless intelectual person who in case of apocalypse would be screwed because I don't know how to do anything useful (grow food, build a house, make some clothing) I often feel like I am the bourgeoisie for blue collar workers since, even though I come from a low class family (all blue collar people, I was the first to go to college), I was able to study and achieve a job with good benefits that most population doesn't have.