When I first started learning about Marxism, I understood the concept of the proletariat and the concept of the working class to be synonyms, as in having the same, identical meaning. Of course, many people use them interchangeably, and in fact there is a frustrating tendency among younger people, (myself a few years ago) to advocate dropping the use of the term "proletariat" entirely, since "working class" came across as more accessible language.

I've been studying about the terminology used in class analysis, since I have been focusing a lot on my education on the concept of social investigation. I've returned to an essay I read years ago called Class Analysis and Class Structure in Canada. In this piece is the following extract that I think flew over my head the first time I read it.

We propose theorizing the labour aristocracy as a section of the petty-bourgeoisie and distinct from the worker elite. The role of the labour aristocracy, which includes the leadership structure within and functionaries of unions, the NDP, and the various institutions they control, is to negotiate the worker elite’s inclusion into imperialist society, while containing, controlling and diverting proletarian struggles from developing into in a revolutionary direction. There is a growing contradiction between what we are calling the labour aristocracy and the worker elite, based on the inability of the labour aristocracy to renegotiate even the status quo – let alone make gains – for the worker elite. We believe that it is dangerous and politically juvenile to not distinguish between those workers who receive back a large portion of their surplus value by virtue of living within imperialist society and being situated in the upper stratum of an imperialist center’s working class – what we call the worker elite – versus the officialdom and functionaries of social democracy within the bourgeosified “labour movement” and the New Democratic Party.

In my own words, the Labour Aristocracy is the fraction of the bourgiousie, who's role is to ensure that the worker elite has a stake in the capitalist-imperialist system, and is not persuaded by revolutionary movements to become partisans of a communist movement.

Examples include as was mentioned, yellow union officials, staff of NGOs, leftist politicians, (NDP in Canada, Berniecrats in the US, Greens/Corbynists in the UK, ext) Could motivational speakers, who go to colleges and schools to talk to young proletarians about the need to go into debt for their education also be consider this type of labour aristocrat? Or people who run anti-racist training for large corporations, Grifters as kites could call them. Or am I extrapolating too much?

How common is this understanding of the distinction between the labour aristocracy/worker elite, and by extention the distinction between the proletariat and the working class?

Are there any potential shortcomings to this analysis? Is it too rigid and could push one into a dogmatic mindset?

Are there any longer articles or books on this subject? Could people suggest any other examples of class analysis being done, that takes into account the questions and concepts addressed in this post?

Apologies if this is too basic of a basic question but I'm really not educated in any Marxist theory yet. I started reading about the Philippines revolution and the National Democratic Front recently, so I learned the ideology they follow is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (correct?)

One popular Marxist group where I live (in Europe) uses the term trotskyist.

Please I would like to know what are the main differences between those two ideologies and do you have recommendations on what texts to read for me to learn about it?

I'm currently reading "Philippine Society and Revolution" by Sison

Popular text by Liu Shaoqi. Dives into the idea of self-cultivation and ideological development. I've read it a couple times and have conflicting opinions on it so wanted to see what others think!

Recently I’ve been confused on this for a few reasons. I know that Lenin called the NEP “state capitalism” but he says it’s called state capitalism “within bourgeois economics.” In other pamphlets, the capitalistic nature of the NEP is repeated time and time again.

My problem is a few possibly incorrect assumptions I’ve made. First, is Lenin’s idea that capitalism isn’t necessary to move from feudalism to socialism, or is it that a historical epoch of capitalism isn’t necessary, while the NEP was initially a necessary retreat to build the rudimentary foundation needed to even begin socialist construction? Another would be my concern that the NEP being called “capitalism” is a Bukharinite distortion that’s convenient for revisionists to use when arguing Dengist talking points.

So, my question is, was the NEP qualitatively the same as a capitalist mode of production? Was it something similar, only referred to as state capitalism as a shorthand? By extension, did the NEP, and also New Democracy, essentially “skip” capitalism in favor of socialist development, or were they regulated forms of capitalist development?

or at least in what book he wrote his opinions on America?

I keep hearing some differing opinions on him (and a lot of the other French marxists in general) and am wondering if it is worth my time to read his material. If so, what should I start with? If not, why not and who else should I look towards?

I've only recently (maybe 5-6ish months?) started going deep into reading theory seriously and I'm curious of where I should go.

Also ,if it helps, this is what I have read of theory so far (mostly based off of the M-L reading hub list): 'The Principals of Communism' by Engels, 'The Foundations of Leninism' by Stalin, 'Dialectical and Historical Materialism' by Stalin, 'Socialism Utopian and Scientific' by Engels, 'The State and Revolution' by Lenin, 'Wage-Labour and Capital' by Marx, and 'Value, Price, and Profit' by Marx. I recently began listening to some of Michael Parenti's lectures as well and have been wanting to see a more "modern" look on Marxism I guess?

Sorry if this post is a bit convoluted, I'm just a bit overwhelmed with all of these different people and am not sure what is of value and what is not. Thanks in advance for any help!

In attempting to be more systematic about learning about Communist theory and practice, I'm wondering if there are any suggested methods that people have for managing large volumes of notes and information.

I'm currently reading and studying a few different books side by side. They are

Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Freire

The Groundings with My Brothers by Rodney

On Mass Work by the CP Phillippines

and most importantly,

Writings on Organization & Mass line by Mao Zedong (Foreign Languages Press collection)

I'm not someone who is formally educated, and although someone said to me recently, that I'm better off not having gone to college because "my head hasn't been filled with postmodern nonsense", I can't help but feel behind. I want to try and grasp these concepts, but sometimes I feel like everything goes in one ear and out the other. I find myself agreeing almost with everything I read, but unable to actually recall or apply what I have read.

I've identified this issue, and that is half the battle I suppose. "To investigate a problem is to solve it" as Mao says. How do I break this problem down into it's composing parts?

My specific focus is to try and understand the concept of The Mass Line, with a particular emphasis on the concept of Social Investigation and Class Analysis (I think this was a phrased used by Mao somewhere, but then formalised by cadre in the CPP as the initial stage of the Mass Line, please correct me if I'm wrong.)

Obviously, I can only actively understand this concept by putting that into practice, but I won't talk about that here. What I am interested in, is how do the comrades here manage all their notes? I strongly feel that a good communist needs to have a note book, but what kind of system do people use? How do you present your notes in a way to help you with pattern recognition? For example, I feel like it was an accident, not through any concentrated work that I saw the similarities between Walter Rodney's concept of Groundings and the Maoist concept of Social Investigation and Friere's ideas of the Problem Posing model of education. But I feel that I have such a large volume of notes (about 800 a4 pages or so) that I find it difficult to link them together. I think I have forgotten 99% of everything I have ever written about, and I don't want to spend eternity rereading my own notes, because I have so much I feel that I want and need to learn about in the future. (I have barely scratched the surface on reading about the Indian, Turkish, and Peruvian people's wars, for example.)

Any insight, advice or clarification on these issues, or suggestions on a better question I should be asking would be highly appreciated!

Good evening, I have just come back from school and I was told something by my Philosophy teacher. She said you could not choose your university degree in the Soviet Union and that it was picked out for you based in your aptitudes and intelligence. Is this correct? I can't find any information that proves it. If it's false, then why did this actually become something people believe in? Any help is greatly appreciated; I'm very confused. She says someone who lived there told her. Perhaps it happened during a specific time period? I'm reading other stories and they say you could pick your degree based in the educational path you followed

The marxist theory says that the contradiction between the working class and the bourgeoisie is always antagonistic. However Mao writes that the under certain circumstances this contradiction can be non antagonistic and can be resolved with peaceful methods. Is this really true? Can someone explain how this can work?

1. How would a communist society deal with sex crimes (like rape, voyeurism, "lewd" behavior in public?)

2. Would a communist society have a sex offender registry? And what is your opinion on such registries?

Specifically regarding Official Sinn Fein. I've partially read up on the history of Official Sinn Fein, which saw itself as a Marxist-Leninist party and had the support of the USSR, and their role in The Troubles. They held an ''anti-sectarian'' position on the conflict, believing that republicans must reach out to the Protestant working class and organise them against capitalism; that didn't exactly work out however, the ''Protestant working class'' started joining death squads to terrorise Catholics and nationalists who felt like they were abandoned by the Officials as they basically gave up armed struggle in the early 70s, leading to more militant splinter groups to form, mainly Provisional Sinn Fein and the IRSP. Today, Official Sinn Fein exists as the Workers' Party of Ireland but they are completely irrelevant.

Their ''anti-Sectarian'' theory reminds of how parties like the CPUSA advocate for ''colourblind'' politics and to basically ignore white supremacism, hoping it disappears, not realising that there are class incentives for white Americans to oppose the end of white supremacism as a settler population. The Unionist/Protestant Ulster Scott population in Northern Ireland are basically settlers too, as they were sent by the British crown during the Ulster Plantation in the 17th century to seize land from the native-Irish.

I am wondering how best to deal with the legacy of settler-colonialism in Ireland today. The situation seems different from Palestine because, despite the partition, Ireland has become a semi-peripheral country in the EU that benefits from the superexploitation of the third-world. And even in Northern Ireland, the Catholic/Nationalist population benefit from first-world privileges too, but armed ''dissident'' groups still exist amongst these communists with an anti-imperialist orientation. There is also immigration which has lead to an ever-larger population of migrants from the third-world who have worse conditions than both native-Irish and Ulster Scots.

There's a popular study the CIA did where they found that the USSR ate the same amount of food as the USA.

Now, I've seen people say it was actually just a press report, the full study found that it was actually worse:

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP85T00313R000300140006-0.pdf

Any opinions? I've cited the study more times than I can count so I was interested to find this.

Share with me the aesthetics of communism in your country, what clothes, dances, songs, words, or turns of phrase were developed by communists in your homeland or that of your ancestors. I adore this stuff so go all out, pictures, attach videos if you like, or just describe them!

What are the best resources on the reactionary uprising in Hungary in 1956?

specifically in this country in the current time, does anyone know? I been folding the internet for answers but nothing yeat

Does anyone know if anyone has written anything about the structures and development of how communist parties are organised?

As in: What a Politburo and CC are, how they are formed, what the different departments so, what the overall science of organisation of a party is, and maybe most interestingly, how they form overtime.

Historical accounts as to how the RSDLP(b) or the Communist Party of China formed, developed and formalised their structures overtime are welcome too.

I posted this last month but the responses got deleted, so I'm posting again.

I'm reading the Foundations of Leninism and on pg 25 Stalin wrote:

The front of capital will be pierced where the chain of imperialism is weakest, for the proletarian revolution is the result of the breaking of the chain of the world imperialist front at its weakest link; and it may turn out that the country which has started the revolution, which has made a breach in the front of capital, is less developed in a capitalist sense than other, more developed, countries, which have, however, remained within the framework of capitalism.

Is there any recent analysis of this that I could read online?

Hello everyone

I had a question on what everybody thinks about tipping culture (particularly in the USA).

I’m currently a server at a chain restaurant and have been in the restaurant industry for four years.

I was scrolling through the tipping subreddit and how prevalent anti-tipping is becoming. One of the main points is that a customer should not be responsible for tipping the worker to compensate for the low wage they’re paid by their employer.

As a communist, I have never had a problem with tipping well as I’ve always empathized with my fellow worker, and think every person is deserving of a more livable wage. I have never had a problem with paying a little more, even in places that do to-go orders or like frozen yogurt places (which have been under fire for asking for tips, even by many servers). I just simply don’t mind! However, I do see the point in that anti-tipping subreddit. Workers DO need to unite and demand higher pay from their employers; employers should not be hoarding all of the profit. I understand how it shouldn’t be the responsibility of customers to pay service providers’ salaries.

My questions are: as a communist, how do you feel about tipping culture? Do you tip at restaurants? How much do you tip? Do you think that as a communist you shouldn’t mind helping others, or should you push them to organize against their bosses for higher pay by not tipping them?

I'm currently reading Towards a new socialism by Paul Cockshott, and he's brought up the theory that in order to rid the workplace of exploitation, instead of getting paid by value a worker would get to "purchase" one hour of someone else's labour for every hour of labour they perform. So if a box of cereal took 10 minutes to make an hours work would buy 6 boxes. I'm curious how this would work. If two people spend 4 hours together working on something is it worth four or eight hours? How could you buy a house when it takes a year to make?

I've seen people talk about "lack of class awareness" among queer and poc people and got curious if it's just a saying or if people's identity and culture really connect to communism (besides being oppressed in our world), and if yes then how.

Genuine question. Also not a us-centred question.

Edit: How would culture and identity be treated in a communist world?

I feel like most of the Marxists I see discussed on this subreddit actually came from reactionary nations and bourgeois academia, or at least they are the main ones spoken of. That makes sense in the cases of leading figures such as Stalin, Lenin and Mao, but whenever people discuss Marxist psychology or aesthetic theory, they are always discussing Lukacs or Adorno or Benjamin... where also are those theorists who were taught under the early soviet and Chinese education systems?

Edit: spelling.

What are some good readings for a Marxist view of decolonizing the America’s? Or some good resources of any type?

What advice would you give to someone who is interested in learning Marxist dialectics? (without large financial cost) What would you do, avoid, which things would you recommend reading, watching, ect...

When I was younger, I believed that capital was just a pile of money stored in a vault. Today, I know that Marx’s description is much more complex than that. I tried reading the first volume of Capital, but I gave up because I found the book quite difficult to understand. I don’t have any background in economic studies, but I think it’s important for me to at least understand what capital means, because I’ve been in discussions where I was asked this, and I didn’t know how to respond.

Hi comrades,

I'm asking if anyone knows if there are any organisations in countries like the Britain, Germany, France or anywhere else that are worth researching?

I feel extremely lost, and although I can spend time reading about theCPPh or CPI(Maoist), and trying to building support for their struggles, at the end of the day we need to be building parties in our own nations to succeed in making revolution.

The only organisation I can think of in recent years is the PCR-RCP in Camada, but sadly this has collapsed without any summation for us to draw lessons from.

Could comrades here point me the right direction? Or give advice on what a better question I ought be asking myself here, instead of dissolving into a puddle of self-indulgent Maoist angst.

I'm not terribly familiar with with the separatism of Catalonia or the Basque country but from my limited knowledge I'm not sure how they constitute separate nations from Spain. I know they're causes many communists support, with some of the largest and most active groups that have supported these causes being Marxist led, so I would like to know what the basis for these are and why they're causes championed by Marxists in those regions.

I have read on Marxist texts that capitalism finds its first origins in Europe, specifically the Low Countries and Northern Italy in the 15th/16th centuries before developing into the fully industrial capitalism of the United Kingdom. I was wondering why these places specifically and not somewhere else? Was it because they were the most advanced in terms of productive forces? If so, why? Many technological advancements came from outside Europe like in China, India, etc.

I wanna read more about this topic, any books/article suggestion would be great.

Thank you.