In about equal measure I have seen the usage of “civilians” to describe ostensible non-combatants in condemning revolutionary violence as well as reactionary violence. In advance, I don’t at all mean to equivocate the two cases, but rather to question the shared emphasis on the “civilian” aspect.

On the one hand, settler apologists and zionists invoke “October 7” as a condemnation of revolutionary violence to justify their ongoing genocide and occupation. This is in complete ignorance of the zionist settlers’ role as, by necessity, violent occupiers.

On the other hand, the repeated murder of unarmed New Afrikans by amerikan police (the latter of whom are considered “civilians” by amerikan society). The use of “unarmed” in the latter case is important to my questioning, as it is reiterated often, despite the fact that an armed New Afrikan deserves the same dignity.

The inconsistent and politically convenient use of who is and who is not considered a combatant by liberalism isn’t surprising, but is there a Marxist understanding for the idea of a “civilian”? The concept as a legal category is fairly new; can it be recovered of the reactionary uses for which it is employed?

Daghestan must be governed in accordance with its specific features, its manner of life and customs. We are told that among the Daghestan peoples the Sharia is of great importance. We have also been informed that the enemies of Soviet power are spreading rumours that it has banned the Sharia. I have been authorized by the Government of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic to state here that these rumours are false. The Government of Russia gives every people the full right to govern itself on the basis of its laws and customs. The Soviet Government considers that the Sharia, as common law, is as fully authorized as that of any other of the peoples inhabiting Russia. If the Daghestan people desire to preserve their laws and customs, they should be preserved.

• J. Stalin, Congress of the Peoples of Daghestan, 1920

Here, Stalin states that the implementation of the Sharia in Daghestan is allowed.

Why, though? To me, this seems like a capitulation to the demands of reactionary classes, such as the imams.

I recently been interested in Yugoslavia’s history and its position as a neutral country during the cold war. But once I started to seek information about its dissolution, i only found the western side of the story that the conflict began because of tensions between the different ethnic groups that lived in Yugoslavia and they were the ones who came there to deliver “democracy”.

But talking to people who lived there at that time, they tell you a totally different story, as if it were a golden age for the republic where everyone lived very well and didn’t have any hate against other ethnic groups.

What books or documentaries show the truth of what happened in Yugoslavia?

This question originates from a recent discussion I saw about one of my favorite bands, Linkin Park. Liberals were criticizing the band for their new, allegedly Scientologist singer, which made me think that this is ridiculously hypocritical. It's like they’re okay with bands supporting the genocide in Palestine, but they draw the line at a Scientologist artist.

This made me wonder if communists should stop consuming music from openly fascist, pro-Israel bands and artists. But at the same time, I can't see how this actually matters. It’s not like my personal boycott is going to bring about a revolution. So the question is, does it even matter if we, as communists, consume music from reactionary artists?

Hi guys, been reading Wage Labour & Capital + Value, Price & Profit as an introduction to Marx's political economy. A bit of a basic question:

In WL+C Marx explains that the price of a commodity is dictated by supply/demand. He points out that this is made possible by knowledge of the cost of production, which provides the capitalist an "anchor" to figure out if he is making or losing money:

"[The capitalist] reckons the falling or rising of the profit according to the degree at which the exchange value of his goods stands, whether above or below his zero – the cost of production."

This seems to have been formulated before the LtV + surplus value as it's laid out in VP+P. Namely, it's not the cost of production that the price of commodities gravitate around through the interplay of supply/demand. It is actually the SLNT of a commodity that the price gravitates around. OK,

But how would the capitalist know the labour crystallized in his commodity? He only knows the amount of money he spent on production. Does he learn this value of his commodity through looking at the market? But if that were the case, SLNT can't serve as the anchor which price gravitates around. Because the capitalist can't actually know the true price, only its approximation as it really exists in the market.

What is going here? How can the amount of labour embodied in a commodity concretely be transformed into market prices? How does the capitalist know that they are selling at the 'correct' price?

From my limited knowledge on the matter, initially the relations between USSR and Turkey were positive.

My question is: why? On here, Turkey is generally seen as a comprador state. So why would the a socialist country have favorable relations with a comprador regime?

hi, i’m not 100% sure on how to phrase this, but i’m looking for some leftist perspectives & histories based on indigenous cultures.

i hate the term “primitive communism” because it sort of feels like a western/eurocentric term that is to explain the types of social structures practiced by indigenous peoples, particularly in the americas/pacific.

i’d like to read up or watch documentaries about indigenous egalitarian social relations and common ownership that go more in depth than what i’ve read by european theorists.

i’m part hawaiian so i’ve read a lot about these sort of practices in hawai’i before it was colonized— there’s a lot to draw on here since hawai’i was colonized much later than the americas, so they were able to establish universal healthcare/education & communal resources, etc on a recognized gov level. although other than historical sources, i haven’t really found a good source that analyzes hawaiian political thought in depth.

i have never been able to find a proper analysis of the concept that isn’t eurocentric & that doesn’t romanticize/infantilize indigenous societies. but i think in order to raise class consciousness in everyday brown/black communities it’s very useful to explain how a lot of these concepts existed in indigenous history, too— easier to understand & identify with. i also think that indigenous perspectives on land in particular are extremely important for all of us to study as well!

any suggestions? any favorite sources on indigenous practices of communal land/resource ownership, and sources that tie them into communist ideology/movements in the modern day? and is there a better descriptor for these types of societies than just “primitive communism”?

i’ve also read a bit on the zapatistas in mexico & would love some more book/doc recs on the movement!

thanks so much!

Hi, I was looking for works on the material conditions whcch gave rise to Islam,any suggestion is apprectiated.

The money-form comes to be attached either to the most important articles of exchange from outside, which are in fact the primitive and spontaneous forms of manifestation of the exchange-value of local products, or to the object of utility which forms the chief element of indigenous alienable wealth, for example cattle. Nomadic peoples are the first to develop the money-form, because all their worldly possessions are in a movable and therefore directly alienable form, and because their mode of life, by continually bringing them into contact with foreign communities, encourages the exchange of products.

• Capital Vol. 1, Karl Marx

This quote is confusing to me, since I learned in sociology 101 courses that the money form was only developed when surpluses were produced, which generally happened only in settled, agricultural societies.

Is it indeed true that nomads first developed the money form?

Hi all,

I'm looking for any books on the Portuguese Forças Populares 25 de Abril (FP-25), a revolutionary Marxist organization which formed following the Carnation Revolution and its betrayal by the Social Democrats and PCP.

Many thanks!

If religion teaches us to maintain peace, be happy, not chase after money, stay away from consumerism, avoid greed, help people, protect animals, the earth, water, and trees, and so on, then why do religious people and religious societies often become so capitalist? Why do they act in ways that are the exact opposite of what their religion teaches, and become entangled in materialism?

I know all the parties were formed before the founding of the GDR as communists wanted Germany to be one, with Stalin writing to the allies to attempt reintegration, but I don't understand why they stuck around after it was clear that there was to be no reintegration. Despite being less industrialised than the Western part the nation had still been part of a fully developed capitalist one so it wasn't like the rest of Europe, why didn't the SED govern alone like the CPSU did in the USSR?

Are there any writers who are exponents of Marxism of this century?

I have heard that most African countries for example tend to have arbitrary borders drawn by colonialist powers, so the borders do not demarcate between nations.

Do socialist states then redraw these borders in the case of a revolution, or do they tend to respect them?

Hi, so I am reading Capital Vol 1 for the first time and in the first chapter marx first presents expanded value form and then gives the general value form. I don't understand what is the difference between those two because they seem like they are conveying the same which is expressing exchange value of commodities by comparing it to other commodities

PS: its page number 154-157 on penguin edition

Is there a meaningful distinction between Bureaucratic Bourgeoisie and Comprador Bourgeoisie?

Also, is the peasantry considered a class or is it part of the semi-proletariat? This question stems from this quote by Mao:

The semi-proletariat. What is here called the semi-proletariat consists of five categories: (1) the overwhelming majority of the semi-owner peasants, (2) the poor peasants, (3) the small handicraftsmen, (4) the shop assistants, and (5) the peddlers. The overwelming majority of the semi-owner peasants together with the poor peasants constitute a very large part of the rural masses.

I'm learning about the Chinese revolution and I'm getting into the part where "Mao" kills the landlords. I know that Mao didn't order the killing of every landlord and that the peasants were doing it of their own volition but that's not my focus.

My question is why does the English literature call them "land lords." When I think of a landlord I think of the people in a capitalist society who charge you rent for land. Most commonly when people think of landlords they think of the person who owns their apartment that they pay rent to and takes 2 weeks to come out and fix your water. But even multimillion dollar businesses sometimes have landlords that they rent to for their commercial property.

But in the Chinese context it seems like the people who were killed were more like feudal warlords akin to Medieval Europe instead of the guy you pay rent to for your moldy apartment. They had standing armies and rather than collecting money many of them collected whatever crops they grew. Why is this term used? Do Marxists view feudal lords as essentially indistinguishable from the more commonly used meaning of landlod?

I have seen a lot with the opposite, formerly communist political parties switching their policies to be more fitting to winning elections, often becoming more tolerant of capitalism through Social-democracy, but has there ever been an opposite case where a party was once considered on the right of the spectrum but has since moved to the Far-left?

I'm trying to learn more about the events leading up to and following the collapse of the USSR, particularly with respect to the transformation to capitalism. I remember reading about mass privatization in this subreddit, just wanted to see if there were any recommended readings detailing this process and its effects in the former SSRs.

From what I understand, the term "private property" is used in at least a couple of related but still different ways. I'm pretty sure I've heard "private property" used to describe the means of production, goods primarily existing for exchange value, goods in the context of exchange, and in opposition to "personal property". I'll admit that, for all I know, I might have misunderstood all of that. Or I might have just watched/read some bad videos/posts.

That last bit about "private property" vs "personal property" is even more confusing. I've heard that a distinction exists and that there isn't a difference. Is "personal property" just stuff you own for yourself rather than as means of production? Is it more specific than that? Are some things not actually personal property even when we think they are due to the first world's power/hwo unequal the system is? Or is that just a bad take?

I've come across many communists referring to North America as Turtle Island or using Abya Yala to describe the entirety of the Americas, names that some indigenous nations historically used. I come from a country where less than 1% of the population is considered indigenous today, yet they also have numerous names for this land. The Americas are home to hundreds of distinct indigenous nations. So, why do some communists insist on using "Turtle Island" or similar names when not all indigenous nations used those terms? Doesn't this approach overlook the diversity of indigenous perspectives and histories?

It appears to me that they are prioritizing "political correctness" over engaging with the complexities of indigenous identities and histories, by homogenizing the diverse indigenous experiences under a single term.

Ive heard of property being theft but next teally had it explained to me so id love to learn how?

Something I have been fascinated by is Lenin's unique organisational approach. The Leninisst vocabulary is one which is rich which useful words, such as dogmatist, liquidationist and revisionist.

If one were to want to read more about Lenin's organisation techniques, where should one go?

After reading Ideology & Ideological State Apparatuses I want to double check my understanding, since I feel like the translation on marxists.org was extremely confusing.

From what I understand, a group of people act in a specific way while producing. That gives rise to ideas related to how they produce. For production to reproduce itself, ideas necessary to production have to be spread by an ideological state apparatus. So that group of people who come to rule this productive society (the ruling class) does that with schools, church, etc.

So what I get confused on would be Althusser's argument of ideology being transhistorical, since he's pulling from Freud, who I haven't read. Honestly I have no idea what that section means at all. That also makes it difficult to understand ideology since I don't see how Althusser is explaining how ideology exists in non-class society, when an ISA doesn't exist to perpetuate ideology.

After that, where it gets confusing again is when he starts talking about the subject. I think I can understand ideology interpellating people as follows: an ISA exists, instilling an ideology, so everyone is subject to the ideology. I understand him explaining how we are always-already subjects. But what exactly is the deeper meaning of explaining everyone being a subject?

Please correct anything I said here if it's wrong and any further explanation on stuff I'm still confused about would be helpful. Thank you.

Are there any Bengali communist who can tell me what type of work i have to do as a member of trade union in dhaka?

I am totally a novice in political philosophy, and recently I picked up Wind In The Tower by Han Suyin . I have read 100 pages, and so far, everything has been written from the perspective in favor of Mao Zedong although this doesn’t necessarily make it inaccurate, I want to say that

How in the book it is written about

How he preferred purism instead of allowing landlordism and allowing small capitalists in the way that Lou Shaoqi wanted.

How he wanted the living standards of farmers and workers to improve; so, took measures to do so

How he preferred constructive criticism and how the party is supposed to interact and communicate with people instead of Confucianism

How he criticized the heavy censorships on literature during that time and so on…

Am I to read her texts with a grain of salt? These all, to my meagre knowledge, sound a bit too in favor of mao, no?

Apologies in advance if I am being too assumptive here.

This is a dumb question. Please be nice.

Let’s say like Country A becomes a true communist nation and the state withers away and workers control the means of production.

(Hopefully that is all accurate.)

Then, like let’s say I am a worker who helps make MRI machines. As a worker-owner, I benefit because society needs a lot of MRI machines, so the wealth I accrue from my labor is a lot.

But my friend, Joe Communism works in a restaurant. To be able to procure all the food from the farm worker co-ops and get all the restaurant kitchen equipment from the restaurant kitchen equipment workers costs a lot. Plus, they sell their goods and services of the restaurant at a reasonable rate, so their accrued wealth is less.

Is there a way where the society deals with the wealth and income disparity? Cause like you don’t want to necessarily subsidize Joe Communism if nobody is coming to the restaurant cause it’s not very good or in some weird inconvenient place.

Is there a mechanism to decrease wealth inequality in communism? Is that important? Or is it just a freedom to choose where you work and then the chips fall where they may.

Also, I am assuming there is a fiat currency cause I don’t know how Country A is going to exist without some form of a marketplace and my understanding is that the command economy of state socialism is not true communism.

Please feel free correct and explain any issues I have made along the way!

I kinda understand the Marxist concept of surplus value, but by "service work" I don't mean people who work in services for a service sector company. E.g. a retail worker working for Walmart. It is pretty straight-forward how exploitation is happening there.

What I want to know is the type of labor that is not, at least directly, meant to create products or services for the capital-owning class. The service is for the person hiring to consume themselves.

Like, I could paint my apartment walls myself, but I could also look for a painter (independent, not the employee of a company). He gives me a quote for material and labor, I pay, he does the job. In that situation, there is no employment relationship, but an incidental one. How do marxists view this?

Another situation, in which there would be an employment relationship, would be if I hire someone to take care of my garden for a salary, or clean my house, or translate a book for me, etc.

Basically, I'm talking paid labor in which the product of said labor is not something that the employer or customer will make money out of (like the retail worker), but are themselves the final consumer.

Disclaimer: I don't support the Ukraine war, I think that was an imperialist action by Putin that can only hurt the life of the average worker in both countries, no matter the outcome.

Hello Comrades. Over the summer, I took an interest interest in politics after becoming disillusioned with capitalism. You know, due to things like companies buying out competitors with good apps and killing them (profit>utility stuff), searching employment and rising house prices, stuff like that.

Then I realized my country had a pretty damn good economic system before Yeltsin fucked us over, despite the propaganda that socialism/communism is a dead dream.

Basically, what should I do if I wish to bring socialism back (other than reading the scripture)? I know CPRF is like, the most well known communist party, but from what I've heard of them, they are social democrats at best. Is there any party that I could join that actually wants to bring change?