Hi this my first post hope I dont break rules. This is my biggest question about communism. How would a communist society deal with dissenting? The way I understand it, communism requires a voluntary organization of the working class. So how do you enact communism if everyone isn't on board, without some sort of violence. Assuming the majority of people do organize and form a sort of de facto communist society, how does it maintane its authority without force? A force would require some sort of authority, right? So how do you have an authority that can maintane order but also can be trusted to not destroy communism for its own benafit. This is the most troubling question I have that I can't get off my mind.

I really want to learn about post WWII Germany specifically the DDR. Preferably from a marxist lense but any accurate history books would be great!

I was only able to find two pdfs about him from marxists.org but have not found more information about him. Anyone got any sources?

I want to read what Gramsci said about Hegemony from the source. I know it's somewhere on the prison notebooks but there are plenty of them to go though. There are also compilations, but idk which one I should check.

So, can anyone recommend me any compilation that that has all or most of what he wrote on this topic? Or tell me which are the notebooks in with Gramsci talks about this topic?

Other books from other authors talking about what Gransci said or the topic in general would also be interesting, so you can also share those if you want. But I want to read what Gramsci himself said before I read other authors talking about what he said.

Hello Comrades,

I’ve been interested in the Political left since I was a young boy (I think it started when I was 10; I am now 18) but have not until recently—within the last few months—really delved into non-Revisionist Marxism-Leninism. I’ve gained a great interest in joining a political organization, but my research has only seemed to show discussions of why every party I’ve looked into is revisionist or otherwise Imperialist. So, I thought, why not ask some of my fellow comrades for help?

Thank you in advance, Comrade Teaghan.

Over the past 2 weeks I’ve noticed a lot of praise for China and market socialism coming from liberals and even conservatives on the internet, so much so I’ve seen posts straight up praising Deng for China’s developments and saying these are wins for communism.

I remember some users here mentioning that even western revisionist orgs used to hold the line that China was revisionists. My main question is, what led to the change in their stance on China, and what led to the recent rise of dengism amongst the western left (not only them even.) I am still learning so I don’t know how to tackle this question yet.

It's been almost five years since the police murdered George Floyd in cold blood, spurring a series of protests against police brutality. However, nothing fruitful has been achieved since. 2023 was one of the most deadliest years for US police killings in a decade:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/08/2023-us-police-violence-increase-record-deadliest-year-decade

From participating in these protests as well as ones for Palestine, I can see what value "peaceful protests" generate for these causes. Cop cities are springing up across the country, funding for police has only increased, and the DNC even ran a presidential candidate that was a prosecutor with a history of fighting to keep non-violent offenders in prison. This is before even getting to the genocide her administration oversaw. It's safe to say whatever goals we fought to achieve, we were unsuccessful in obtaining (but at least we got this hilarious photo-op) https://www.newyorker.com/culture/on-and-off-the-avenue/the-embarrassment-of-democrats-wearing-kente-cloth-stoles

However, I can say that the feeling amongst Black Americans, at least in my community was one of frustration. Not just for police brutality but for all of it: capitalism, racism, oppression, etc. The people in Minneapolis didn't wait for anyone's permission to burn down a precinct, that was of their own volition. I'm now contemplating if a more organized effort would have led to more favorable outcomes. This is not to say more unorganized riots would have been preferrable, since the 1992 LA riots also didn't lead to much. I wasn't a communist then but I'm trying now to look for ways to apply what I learn to my own sitatution as a black person living in the US.

So my question is, is there any lessons we can take from 2020, was there anything there to begin with? Anything that could have been done differently to avoid the defeat at the hands of reformism? Or is it too late to take anything from it since it kind of seems like everyone has moved on?

I have been re-reading Settlers, and I was a bit confused by the way in which the following history was described:

The phenomenon of the various capitalist ruling classes buying off and politically corrupting some portions of their own wage-laboring populations begins with the European colonial systems. The British workers of the 1830's and 1840's were becoming increasingly class-conscious. An early, pre-Marxian type of socialism (Owenism) had caused much interest, and the massive Chartist movement rallied millions of workers to demand democratic rights. Alarmed at this - and warned by the armed, democratic insurrections in 1848 in both France and Germany - the British capitalists grudgingly decided that the immense profits of their colonial empire allowed them to ease up slightly on the exploitation at home.

While the pre-condition for the bribery of the Western European labor aristocracy is made apparent to be the colonial system, the most immediate cause of its emergence is seemingly implied to be the political situations of class struggle throughout Europe at the time.

Is this not taking the ideology of the bourgeoisie at its word? Cecil Rhodes in Lenin’s Imperialism is quoted as saying: “If you want to avoid civil war, you must become imperialists”, and I don’t disagree that this bribery is a component part of what makes the class contradiction secondary. However, my concern is that this political interpretation presumes the bourgeoisie was/is acting as a class-for-itself through its bribery, rather than one whose actions follow according to the law of value. Was the political situation primary in this bribery, or was it the underlying development of capitalism?

I am unsure if I’m stuck in the mindset of mechanical materialism, if I am just being too cautious in my reading, if I am misreading the point entirely, or whatever the underlying problem is. Any clarification, or criticism of any faulty premises I’m expressing, would be helpful.

I’m in college and I watched The Battle of Algiers with a friend the other day and thought a group analysis could bring about a lot of traction. That movie really impacted me and I felt that this kind of thing where we heavily encourage discussion could be beneficial

Hi! I’m just reading about the Soviet-era biologists, specifically embryologists. Apparently, in 1948, Soviet Union embraced Lysenkoism, pushed by biologist Trofim Lysenko, who was backed by Stalin. The campaign rejected natural selection, and science-based agriculture, leading to mainstream biologists being dismissed and/or imprisoned.

Can anyone shed more light on this? I’m coming across a lot of Western literature on this, but would love some more credible resources. Thanks!

I saw it claimed on this subreddit that Hoxha’s disowning of Mao wasn’t so simple, and in his last years, he vacillated on Mao and the importance of the GPCR. Can anyone prove this?

To be more specific: I meant vacillated positively post- his turn against Mao.

Ive heard that “Chairman Dallas” of the Red Guard/“CR CPUSA” milieu was a fed who’s goal was to intentionally wreck a nascent socialist movement in the US. His behavior of constant secrecy mixed with oftentimes puzzling bouts of repression against previously trusted comrades makes me think that he could have been. Also the fact he previously dated a cop and how he got out of prison so quickly despite his charges. What are your thoughts?

I’m in the Bay Area and have always passed by a bookstore called “Revolution Books”(a bookstore owned?/operated? by RevCom). I’ve always been open to the ideas of communism, but never took the step to educate myself on the literature, and only a few days ago decided to start. I thought there could be no better place to start than Marx’s Manifesto, so I picked one, but after a quite lengthy conversation with the shopkeeper, during which I agreed to show up to a discussion they were holding, I ended up buying a copy that had Lenin’s April Thesis included and a copy of Bob Avakian’s Basics book (idk the name off the top of my head).

They started the discussion with a video clip of Avakian titled something along the lines of “hope and a positive future”, but he never said anything concrete, just “now is the perfect time for revolution” and how “many people in the movement are ready”. It seemed pretty vague but I brushed it off thinking, “Concrete ideas, plans, actions, etc. is something I can ask about later and this must be more of a vague introduction.” However, the thing that alarmed me was how eerily similar Avakian’s words were to the shopkeeper’s from before and others I talked to before the discussion, as if there was some script. After the video, the floor was opened to discussion, which I thought was odd as there really wasn’t much of substance in the video to be discussed, besides how pressing the times were and that fascist Trump must be defeated. One positive thing I took away from the discussion was that a proletariat revolution is very possible, with BLM being a concrete example of the people causing the system to shake.

Afterwards, I went home and decided to look more into them, hoping they weren’t weird and could help me understand MLM. Turns out, Bob Avakian is seem as a cult leader by most (which I can kinda see from that discussion). I finished reading the Marx and Lenin texts, but haven’t started the Avakian one. I heard that Ajith presents very good and compelling criticisms against Avakianism, so I’m planning on reading Avakian first and then Ajith.

So far, I find myself agreeing with Marx and Lenin quite a bit and I plan on reading as much communist literature as I can. In regard to all this, I have two questions I would appreciate answers to:

1. The main thing I took away from the discussion I attended was that revolution and a complete overhaul of the capitalist imperialist system is necessary. This seemed to be the sentiment behind RevCom and the members present. To my understanding, many oppose RevCom because of their cultish following of Avakian, but is there merit to their (at the very least professed) devotion to a revolution?

2. What should I do to become more educated and involved? I’ve been stuck in the Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, etc. sphere for a big chunk of my life. After I left, like I mentioned above, I never bothered to educate myself but felt there was something compelling about communism. Now, I want to educate myself on communist theories, but I understand that theory without practice is useless, so feel burdened to be involved in one way or another. Could someone give me some pointers for further reading and how to get involved?

I’m sorry this was a long post. I come from a place of ignorance and inexperience, both to the ideas of communism and to Reddit, so please be gracious to any mistakes or errors I made. Thank you!

I know that the PCP were the first to really define Maoism, and that defining is considered the founding of Maoism by many (but not all) Maoists. That being said I do not know in which document this was done, if anyone knows and happens to have a link to that document, that would be great.

Hi, Communism101. I apologize if this is a basic question. I've tried to find the answer on google and other means, but I a) don't know the best terms to use and b) am too dumb re: economics to understand on my own (i have a near-phobic aversion to higher level mathematics), so I hoped that asking people directly might help. I consider myself interested in Marxism and socialism, but so economically incompetent that I need some help.

Under a stateless, classless, moneyless society, how do people obtain goods that they either cannot individually produce, such as medications or cell phones, or that they would prefer to get from an expert maker, such as clothing if they themselves are of an unrelated profession, such as a teacher or IT professional? I'm not so naive as to think that there isn't an answer or proposed set of answers to these questions, but I've yet to find one. Is there a barter system? A system of trusting that people will be generally fair? I really struggle to imagine a world without currency broadly, possibly because currency itself does predate capitalism, historically, so it's hard to imagine what an alternative to it entirely would be.

I know Lenin mentioned it, but I’m not sure about Marx. I’d appreciate it if anyone knowledgeable could share their insights.

i know the socialists/communists were the main threat to the nazi party in the 30s, and marx thought the revolution would happen there first. pretty sure lenin or trotsky said the russian revolution would spread to germany next. wondering how close they actually were to that happening? feels odd that the revolutionary fervor burned for almost a century there without a revolution or something close, unless i’m mistaken.

im currently studying lenin's "imperialism," and one thing that is confusing for me is how to understand antitrust laws in the US, and how this fits into his general thesis. For instance the breaking up of Standard Oil in 1911, or the lawsuits against microsoft in the 90s/2000s. If anyone has any light to shed on this that would be greatly appreciated, thanks!

I'm interested in what orgs exist in the UK, since I've seen some discussion about different tendencies in the US but not much here.

I know the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) are pretty big, but they're trots and I'm not 100% convinced of their ideas (not necessarily against them either, just undecided)

I mean party in the leninist sense, rather than being parliamentary parties first, those looking to organise and not just run in elections.

What happened at the Shelling of Mainila? Was it a false flag like the Western propaganda has said, or it was really a shelling made by Finland?
Edit: Churchill also admitted that the shelling was made by Finland, and it was called The Iron Curtain

Hello, is there anyone in the greater Seattle area that would be interested in a communist reading group that emphasizes anti-colonial struggle, national liberation, decolonialism, etc.? The initial goal would be to study a lot of theory and then eventually start an org which can be admitted into the All-Empire Worker's League. Please dm if you're interested, even if you don't read all that much. We can work on that. Thank you for reading.

I've heard Communists say that they want a Stateless Society, but may support a Worker's Council and a Government. What is the difference between the three?

I understand that wage labour is exploitative as it extracts surplus value from the worker, but how would the industry be maintained if a worker receives the entire fruits of their labour? Would it be like an upkeep tax or something? Thanks!

The most common advice I hear is to "join a local organization" but I don't have any socialist organizations where I live, so it looks like I have to start one. I know 12 people voted for Claudia De la Cruz so an organization is possible, I just don't know what we would do.

Title.

Im 18 years old and living in Montreal. I've begun reading theory and seriously what to begin being politically active, but I don't know what kind of party / organisation I should join. Though they are for worker's rights, the NPD is capitalist, so I won't join them. Does anyone know of any socialist organizations in Montreal? Thanks!