I heard so many times that there was no democracy in the USSR & Eastern Europe & that political debate was lacking. Even an ML like Caleb Maupin criticizes the USSR for not being democratic enough & too authoritarian.

This is an honest question; I don't mean to offend anyone.

I was wondering if certain LGBT+ positions are idealistic and therefore contrary to Marxism. For example, one could argue that the trans position does not address material conditions. Or, for instance, it could be argued that the struggles for LGBT+ rights do not represent the larger working class, which sees them as movements far removed from their interests and, it must be said, foreign. At this point, don't LGBT+ marches defend the same things as Coca-Cola?

However, I'm curious to know if this is an incorrect analysis and why. I believe movements like the PCP and Gonzalo in Peru were communist movements that, at the same time, supported LGBT+ struggles.

How do you argue from a Marxist perspective in support of LGBT+ movements?

Most of us socialists are against intellectual property laws because they make access to knowledge and culture difficult for low income people and it also turns an infinite thing (ideas) into a scarce commodity. However, are there intellectual property laws in AES countries (such as China, Vietnam, Cuba, Laos, DPRK, etc.) or is all intellectual property common property of the society as a whole?

It seems like past and present socialist states had/have to constantly be on guard to prevent the destruction of socialism and the restoration of capitalism, while capitalism is the "default state" that occurs when they didn't play their cards just right. This was the case even back when half the world was socialist, so it seems like there's more to the story than socialist countries simply being outnumbered.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem like it was such a struggle for capitalism to flourish during the feudalism-to-capitalism transition. Private ownership and idustrialization seemed to make royalty obsolete in a relatively short period of time, and save for specific well-known examples like France, it doesn't seem like there were major "feudal counterrevolutions."

On the other hand, advanced capitalist countries today have highly centralized and socialized means of production, with companies like Amazon and Samsung exhibiting a high degree of central planning. However, this doesn't seem to be bringing those counties any closer to overthrowing capitalism, unlike how private ownership threatened feudalism. Even countries that were industrialized from the ground-up with a socialist structure, like the USSR, fell to capitalism basically overnight.

Looking back, I wish the Arab states won.

Basically I traveled to Japan and met this awesome 50 year old Japanese guy and want to teach him about Palestine. The problem is he doesn’t speak much English so the article/video would have to be in Japanese, could anyone be of assistance?

Hi comrades.

I've just been permanently banned from said subreddit because if this comment I posted 👇 https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/1cs8xiv/why_do_some_communists_hate_stalin/l44s9ei/

I couldn't even post this reply to their message 👇 "> Not sure what the first part of this means

It means what it means, I think I was clear enough. You have a capitalist and a communist way of approaching things and what is detrimental to workers under capitalism is beneficial to workers under socialism.

but free trade is the removal of barriers to international commodity exchange

Yes, we all know what free-trade under capitalism is, but I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about free-trade under communism. I don't see why cooperation between countries should be abolished once capitalism has been dealt with?!

Plus if you understand communism as being a moneyless society, how can trade between countries not be free, i.e without barriers?

not getting things for free

No shit, Sherlock!

There's no such thing as "communist free trade" because commodity production (and therefore exchange) does not exist under communism.

So what you are saying is that there won't be trade under communism.

How does that even make sense? How can the international division of labor be maintained and improved without trade? Do you know how complex the technologies used in a modern hospital are? How countries without MRIs could get those machines if you don't have exchanges between countries? What about exchanging Art? Books? Etc.

This is madness.

Considering that Mao faced the same issues and pursued different policies, yes.

🤣🤣🤣🤣 What do you mean Mao faced the same issues? How can you compare post-1949 China and post-Mao China and say the issues China was facing were the same?

Also, Mao and Deng pursued the same goal, which was the very same goal written by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto: the ownership of the means of production by the workers AND liberating the forces of production "as rapidly as possible".

Why do you only value the former and completely ignore the latter? Like I said, people like you are happy with people being poor under socialism as long as the policies pursued comply with you purity fetichism.

Mao and Deng pursued different policies because they were governing at different stages of development, the revolutionary one (Mao) and the reformist one (Deng): revolutionary maoist China revolutionized the ownership of the means of production and reformist Dengist China revolutionized the liberation of the productive forces. This is socialism 101.

Mao's revolutionary socialist China allowed Deng's reforms to be successful which in turn allowed Mao's goals - a prosperous and powerful China - to become more and more of a reality everyday...and I won't even mention Xi's China and his deepening of Deng's reforms.

But, again, the goals were the same and China is as socialist now as it was then, if not more."

Plus I can't appeal to this decision since they also muted me for 28 days...

Am I the asshole here?

Firstly, I will say I have read enough to understand that the the "Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis" stuff is nonsense peddled by Fichte, and isn't really relevant to Marxist studies (or even Hegel for that matter).

However, when I've discussed this very thing in various circles online, as an outspoken ML, there are some attitudes I've noticed that seem to indicate many "left coms" hold very different views and interpretations of dialectics and therefore dialectical materialism in comparison to MLs, and I'm very curious as to what this disagreement is?

Especially, what part of dialectics do they believe that MLs such as Stalin and Mao are misunderstanding or misconstruing? How does this tie into Marx and Hegel's proposition of the dialectic (idealism and materialism being the only obvious one with Hegel). I've been searching a bit lately and haven't been able to find anything incredibly solid in the literature, so I thought I would consult here.

Thanks!

In other words, how long would you expect an anarcho-capitalist society (or any "laissez-faire right-libertarian paradise" for that matter) to last for before it collapses?

Hello, I tried to ask this question in r/ communism101 and they were just being condescending without giving me a straightforward answer. I have heard things are better over here so I would like to try a shot at this question again.

I am a beginner Marxist who agrees with everything about Marxism-Leninism except for the excessive censorship of art, music and literature. I understand that bourgeois ideology must be suppressed under the dictatorship of the proletariat, and I believe that freedom of speech, assembly, and political participation should not be granted to those with outright bourgeois or facist ideology. I also believe that certain types of media are inherently such and should be a crime if found in one’s possession, specifically pornography. However, I do not agree with the idea that every piece of art and literature has a definite class character and should be denied existence if it is not deemed proletarian enough. I think art can be subjective, and I am unsure of how the line is drawn and upheld between political suppression and micromanaging. Is there a way to avoid this issue in a planned economy, and if so, is it only doomed to lead to capitalist restoration? Subsequently, does my position on the subjectivity of art mean that my ideology is not Marxism-Leninism, but something else? Thank you.

I really want to understand the Soviet economy just from a mathematical perspective. I would like to know how prices were decided and controlled, and how much of a part supply and demand played in the process. From what I understand, Marx doesn’t deny supply and demand, but just maintains that it doesn’t play that big of a role when it comes to prices. What books, pamphlets, etc… do you recommend for me to get a better grasp on this?

I have heard this argument against socialism and for neoliberalism. People basically say India, even if it’s still poor, has gotten much wealthier after giving up their model of heavy state intervention for a neoliberal and much less regulated market economy.

I know some Jewish immigrants from the former USSR (Russia, specifically) who say they had to flee the Soviet Union due to discrimination against Jews. They say their parents made a living by secretly teaching Hebrew, because Hebrew was banned.

If this story is true, when did the USSR ban Hebrew and for what purpose? Was this part of a broader ban on religion? No idea how old the immigrants are. They looked middle aged (fled the USSR in the 80’s), so their parents who taught Hebrew were probably silent generation. The whole family is also very pro-Israel, if that makes a difference.

I do not believe so. I think historically they were both freaky. They had that dog in them. If you disagree, state why.

https://youtu.be/wboO_qVsp0w?si=UFhRBU3Iz1iI3w-P

I keep running into a communication issue.

When talking to some folks, they disregard everything from outside their school of philosophy & claim a monopoly on truth. Dialectical Materialism, they call it.

They say "Dialectical Materialism is science" but can't define how it meets the peer review process standard of the Scientific Method.

So I am confused;

Why are some folks claiming Dialectical Materialism is science when it is simply philosophy?

Why are some folks claiming Dialectical Materialism has a monopoly on fact?

Is the Rojava community/ arm of the PKK a U.S. operation? Is it boosted by western interests in the region the same way both ISIS and Al Qaeda are? I ask because I recently found out their ten year anniversary was in 2022, which conveniently lines up with ISIS’ debut and US intervention in Syria. I know it’s more of an anarchist thing, but I am still curious, as some famous left media figures have fought with them. If they are an opp, does that make the Zapatistas one as well?

Like, Third Position socialists and stuff like that.

I have a friend who identifies as a capitalist (despite having no capital), and she blames all her problems on "the socialist government" (we live in the US).

Was recently banned from r/communism and r/communism101 for suggesting a comrade take some time to focus on their mental health. TL;DR, this person posted something to the effect of "how do I get involved in organizing when I just want to die" and I felt for them. I imagine this is something we've all dealt with before. I still do occasionally, but I try to keep revolutionary optimism in mind despite having a slightly pessimistic nature myself.

I'm still learning about Marxism. I didn't realize there was such a stigma about therapy in Marxist circles. I've done a little reading now, and I can see the argument, but I just don't get how recommending someone focus on their own health for a little while goes against the principles. Are we not less effective agents for the cause when we can't get out bed for depression? Are people more effective when they could break down crying at any time?

I guess my core question is this - am I the asshole here?

Obviously the Western narrative, that Afghanistan was the USSR's "Vietnam," isn't true, the West was funding, training, and arming the Mujahideen, but I still don't have a clear picture on what happened.

I know that Afghanistan at the time was at least a moderately socialist, secular state, and that the Afghani government requested the support of the Soviet Union against the extremist insurgency. The Soviet Union provided assistance, but this is where my knowledge breaks down. Obviously Wikipedia is not going to be useful here.

What were the conditions that led up to the Soviet Union's involvement in Afghanistan, and more broadly, what happened? What sources should I consult about the history of Afghanistan that can help me fill in the gaps?

I’m interested in doing more reading on not only theories but also personalities from and leaders of international socialist movements. But the issue is I don’t know which biographies are written from a socialist or leftist perspective and am not terribly interested in reading a capitalist critique of these individuals. If there is a historically neutral biography I’m open to it, but I’m really more curious about what socialists say about themselves/ourselves.

Some names I’m interested in reading more about:

Karl Marx

V.I. Lenin

Josef Stalin

Eugene Debs

Hi Chi Minh

Mao Zedong

Those are some of the main highlights I’m interested in reading about, but I’m also not very well versed in socialist history so if you know of others I’d love to hear about them.

It's way to hard to find unpropogandized information about this so I asked you as always

edit: thank you for your answers so far, i am going to look more into Deng for further understanding. i hate to admit, but i don't read books, not enough attention span, but i am aware of certain YouTubers who may or may not have information about Deng, that i may or may not have been avoiding due to allegations of them being "tankies" lol...

​

i was chatting with someone from China briefly, but due to his limited English, it made it a bit difficult to get all the answers i was wondering about. he was telling me he had very long high school hours, and even his college hours are a bit longer than i would expect the average person to be committed to.

so firstly, i wanted to know if there is a mandate on longer school hours in China, or is there merely a social pressure to over-achieve to try to do better in life later? i ask this because this guy was telling me he basically was doing school stuff 6 days a week, and due to his long commute, would be away from home from 6am til 9pm.

secondly, since i had his attention for a while, i decided to ask about things like transportation, rent, and food. he does say that the hype of the train systems is legit, so i don't have much to follow on transportation, but when he told me that he thought rent was too high, i was honestly shocked. does China have rent control? is rent higher in some areas than others?

i didn't get to ask him about food much before he actually went to go have dinner, so i want to ask if there are price controls on food, and if there is ever food scarcity in any parts of China? are there a fair bit of restaurants, or is it more so a society that cooks for themselves?

finally, the biggest shock, and i feel like i could have Googled this, but Google is owned by Western Capitalists, so idk if the results would have been accurate, but he told me that there is actually a major wealth gap in China? is this for real? if there is, then what is THE COMMUNIST PARTY doing, seriously?

like i get it, the whole world is under the boot of Capitalism, but i would have expected China to at least set a higher standard, so please tell me this college kid is wrong :(

i can't think of much else atm, and btw, idk what political alignment i am exactly, probably somewhere between DemSoc and LibSoc? but either way, i want to put my faith into this Reddit's wisdom, because i don't want to just assume China is whatever the Western media, or even Western Leftists, say it is.