Hello comrades! I'm again struggling to understand aspects of the soviet financial system. In particular, the existence of money and prices within the state production sector (which is basically every industry, enterprise and factory in the country). I get that money was real in the retail market, as wages were paid in cash to workers who then used it to buy some consumer goods. But why use prices in the industrial/wholesale sector? The facts every industry and factory belonged to the state and there was a plan that governed how much was to be produced and distributed to, meant there was no need for money or prices in the state producing sector. However, the USSR did use prices in this sector. Factories "sold" their produce which where "bought" by other factories. This is obviously impossible. The state can't sell and buy stuff to itself. Its like a capitalist owning 2 factories and selling/buying its own produce between them. It's nonsensical. In the USSR the produce of some state factory was in practice just transferred to another state factory for further processing. So why there were prices and "buying and selling" within the state sector? And this is also related to the infamous soft budget constraint: Whenever a factory was unprofitable and incurred "losses" (again, how is this even possible if there should be no prices?), these were covered by the state through "profit redistribution" or "state loans". Nothing of this should exist, yet existed. Why?

As one the above mentioned people, I find it surprising how more often than not, the opinion of people who have experienced the ideology the sub espouses is disregarded or accused of being propaganda or misinformed. Is there a reasoning behind it, or is it more of a knee-jerk reaction to it?

MIM says majority nations in imperialist nations shouldn't have their own single nation parties:

MIM also advocates that any vanguard organization for Euro-Amerikans always accept members from other genuine Maoist vanguards, since there is no Euro-Amerikan proletariat, and the material basis for a revolutionary Euro-Amerikan party is weak. It is very possible that the best possible leaders for the Maoist Internationalist Party of Amerika may be non-Amerikan immigrants. Currently we base our strategic plans on that existing shortage of white proletarian revolutionaries. (There is a general shortage of revolutionaries, but history has shown that the proportion of revolutionaries in the oppressed nations can rise very quickly.)

Maoist Zak Cope wrote in The Wealth of (Some) Nations in support of mass immigration partly because:

it is only the most marginalised and precarious minority sections of the working populations of the major imperialist countries who may be ready to act as its champions.

Never mind the fact that non-class oppression doesn't lead communists to becoming anti-revisionists, since most non-white U.S. communists are labor aristocracy deniers now that they're class oppressors. But MIM and Cope both generally think majority nations in imperialist nations are incapable of waging revolution and governing themselves afterwards, so they need to rely on the minorities to do it for them.

Which is no different than “superior, developed” rich nations using materialism as an excuse to exploit “inferior, developing” poor nations because they’re they think poor nations are too dumb, backward, and incapable of building their economies by themselves. So MIM and Cope are both essentially doing the same thing using materialism as an excuse for national chauvinism against the majority nations in imperialist countries, just in reverse.

"Maoist" Sakai also wonders why white rebels aren't communists:

So the white workers as a whole are either the revolutionary answer – which they aren't unless your cause is snowmobiles and lawn tractors – or they're like ignorant scum you wouldn't waste your time on. Small wonder rebellious poor whites almost always seek out the Right rather than the left. Small wonder rebellious poor whites almost always seek out the Right rather than the left.

A lot of whites don't want communism because they're overpaid labor aristocrats who just want capitalism to be reformed. But U.S. communists have spent the last century denying whites self-determination to form their own country. So it's no surprise a lot of white rebels have no interest in communism. The ignorant ones aren't the whites here, it's the Maoists.

The "scum" comment is also insane chauvinism against a specific demographic too. Is Sakai willing to be consistent and call the majority of Japanese people scum as well, since they're also anti-immigrant? A lot of Japanese people won't rent to or hire foreigners.

As a person with people that had family members suffer under it and there’s photographs, what are your responses to that.

In the Russian Empire prior to 1917, there were only 3.5M industrial workers out of a population of 160M.

Having successfully liquidated or forced into exile the higher social classes, the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie, the 3.5M industrial workers, about 2% of the population, set about ruling over the empire, most of the inhabitants of which were illiterate peasants.

Did the workers at this point simply become the new aristocracy? Indeed, they expropriated the land from private landlords and forced the population to work for no pay. In modern terms, this would be defined as slavery.

So effectively, the 2% of workers in the Russian Empire became the new aristocracy, ruling over a vast population of slaves, just like the previous aristocracy had prior to the abolition of serfdom, which was completed in 1861.

They all seem to reject or have no faith in working class struggle. They seek to control and manage social revolution to ensure it goes through the correct bourgeois stages (according to them.)

When MLs/Maoists are asked to defend supposed socialist gains of their favorite countries, they just list off social democratic type reforms and sidestep the social question. In practice the USSR betrayed social revolution in Spain to make friends with France and Great Britain and China uses Marxist jargon while crushing strikes for CEOs.

Sure half of anarchists and reformist socislists are more or less liberals but Maoists are also class enemies as are maybe half of MLs.

Is it because of nationalism, economic depression, populair discontentor or something else?

What is the material conditions that let and made people be selfish when they discovered agriculture and farming? Also I acknowledge people in the tribes in primitive communist society were not selfish the same as how families are function now(despite the patriarchy that emerged in the slave society and continued it's existing in later stages, feudalism and capitalism cuz we are talking about the mutual relations between individuals of the family and not the hierarchy) , which in one family there's the selfish and the generous and the same goes to the tribe in primitive communist society. Also how do you explain the generosity of people under capitalism?

i dont believe that communism works please change my mind . i have a friend that is a communist but i don not understand it and do not see how it could ever work

So me and my family had a house in the country we used to live in but we moved abroad to see our family and stuff like that and we intend to go back, so we put the house to rent to someone stay there while we are abroad so we do not need to look for somewhere to live again when we come back.

My question is, even though the rent of the house is in the most affordable price as possible and it's used only to maintain the house, like electric, water, gas, insurance, enough money to pay for a service if something breaks and stuff like that "included" so almost nothing goes to us (we do not get profit from it) and we do not intend to make the rent more expensive (to have the same price as other places) because we want someone there and not like people moving in and out all the time or to make the value of the house higher to sell it later or something (we don't want that), is it okay or we could be still considered those evil landlords (just kidding - or not idk)?

I'm a communist myself for a few years now but I'm with this question in mind for a while, I kept thinking stuff like can I be a communist and my family is renting a house abroad while they don't go back? even though we are not getting profit from it? so is it okay instead of leaving the house empty while there's a living crisis? Is it okay in this case or not? The house is not abandoned, there's someone there for years and years and they can stay there as long they want while we don't have money to come back, and we are not getting profit from the rent, we work as normal people to pay our bills here. Any thoughts?

Mark fisher in his books says "The current ruling ontology denies any possibility of a social causation of mental illness. The chemico-biologization of mental illness is of course strictly commensurate with its depoliticization. Considering mental illness an individual chemico-biological problem has enormous benefits for capitalism. First, it reinforces Capital's drive towards atomistic individualization (you are sick because of your brain chemistry). Second, it provides an enormously lucrative market in which multinational pharmaceutical companies can peddle their pharmaceuticals (we can cure you with our SSRIs). It goes without saying that all mental illnesses are neurologically instantiated, but this says nothing about their causation. If it is true, for instance, that depression is constituted by low serotonin levels, what still needs to be explained is why particular individuals have low levels of serotonin. This requires a social and political explanation; and the task of repoliticizing mental illness is an urgent one if the left wants to challenge capitalist realism.

So is mental illnesses a big benefit for capitalism?

Okay, so from what I know, communism is a type of economic philosophy that includes a dictatorship, and Instead of capitalism, everyone gets provided what they need (housing, healthcare, etc) no matter what job they have. Everything is equal to eliminate classes (?) the whole idea is to work for the country/government in order to contribute to power and economic prosperity, and in return the wealth is shared among everyone that contributes. However, in some cases there is mass censorship and persecution to those that don’t believe in their government’s policies(?) a lot of communist countries are seen as totalitarian and authoritarian (?) and use inhumane methods to control people that don’t match the government’s values. However, most countries are actually socialist and have a democratic system to elect their leader, and instead of the government controlling all factories and businesses, the people do, however there are still instances of persecution (?)

If a company like android made an open source programs, software etc. and some dude came and use those sources for his own benefits by developing and upgrading them is he exploiting the workers that made the open sources?

1. What ideology would you say you most align with?

2. What social relations must be produced to constitute a Capitalist Mode of Production? [Key Words]: Mode of Production; Production for Exchange; Wage Labor; Private Property; Bourgeoisie and Proletariat (Class); Capital; Valorization; Accumulation

3. What are the characteristics of the Communist Mode of Production, in both the Lower Phase (AKA: Socialism) and the Higher Phase (AKA: Communism)? [Key Words]: Transitional; Mode of Production; Higher and Lower Phase; Money; State; Commodity; Labor

4. Explain the methodology of Marx, showing how Marx reconciles the inconsistencies within Materialism and Idealism via Dialectics. [Key Words]: Contradiction; Materialism; Dialect; Transhistoricism; Hegel/Aristotle/Mao/Engels; Holistic; Dynamic; Social Relations; Dialectical Idealism; Production and Reproduction; Law of Dialect;

5. What differentiates Scientific Socialism from Utopian Socialism? Please give an example of both. [Key Words]: Moral/Normative Arguments; Class Character; Dialectical Materialism; Interchangeable with Communism; Robert Owen; Anarchism

6. Explain at least three theoretically derived innovations Lenin made to Marxism. [Key Words]: Imperialism; Vanguard; Democratic Centralism; War Communism; Revolutionary Defeatism; Particulars of Legal and Illegal Struggle; Dual Power; Theory of Socialist Industrialization

7. What is the materialist conception of the history of the State in terms of its: Genesis Development Withering Away [Key Words]: Dictatorship of the Proletariat/Bourgeoisie/Ruling Class; Withering; Capturing the State; Smashing Bourgeois State; Class Conflict; Social Relations; Means of Production; Distinct Interests

8. How should the Working Class organize to take class power? [Key Words]: Party; Oppressed Groups; Democratic Centralism; Tactics; Go to the Masses; Praxis

1. What are your views on National Liberation Movements, including within existing nations (Indigenous Land Back movements, Black liberation in the Americas, the Palestinian and Kurdish struggles, Kosovo etc)? If you do not support National Liberation Movements, please explain why.

2. Do you support LGBTQIA+ peoples and their movements for liberation? Why or why not?

3. Do you believe that Communists should support the pursuit of multi-polarity even through strengthening of Capitalist anti-US/west states(Russia, Iran, Belarus etc)?

Hello everyone! Recently, I’ve been thinking about imperialism and how it functions in today's world. I discussed this with my fellow comrades and got really confused. Also, take in consideration that I'm coming from a Marxist standpoint.

See, according to Lenin and his work “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism”, imperialism is characterized by monopoly capitalism and, importantly, the expansion of capital beyond national borders. So, does it mean that every today's country is imperialistic? If yes, there are several implications that stem from this:

1. It means that nearly every country, no matter how it’s oppressed or poor, exhibits imperialistic tendencies due to the presence of large national corporations operating within its and other nations' borders. (Aside from Cuba and North Korea probably) However, I can’t wrap my head around this, because I think that there is a “primary” oppression. For instance, if some small European or Latin American country heavily influenced by institutions like the IMF and dominated by the economic interests of the United States, the focus should be on the primary mechanisms of oppression imposed by external forces rather than solely on the presence of national monopolistic corporations within the country. Moreover, colonialism still exists today and I believe we should combat it.
2. It also implies the impossibility for any kind of national liberation struggles in the current era. Since any country is imperialistic there is nothing for the country to liberate from, aside from an external aggressor. In the context of war, imagine that the US attacks some Latin American country. Many leftists would assume this country would wage a national liberation war, but in essence they are both already bourgeois/capitalist countries and both have monopoly capitalism, so there would be nothing progressive about supporting the defending country. Note that this is not necessarily my personal belief, but rather a logical continuation of the idea I've mentioned. If you ask me, it seems like a form of absenteeism and even cynicism. However, I'm not sure what counter-arguments I can raise against this.

I hope I made myself clear and I'm eager to hear your thoughts on this matter. I also would love to see some books or articles on this topic. Feel free to ask for any clarifications you may need.

Thank you!

Edit: typos

If you disagree, give the reason in the comments.

Totally unrelated, but wanted to say it. Imo In India, and many parts of the world, people are qualified but not educated, for example a government teacher will teach students about evil of the dowry system, but will take dowry in his own case.In most education systems students are told, “what to think?" Instead of how to think. Most schools and the governments do not endorse critical thinking or help kids to form their own opinion. In British time the books of India told students about, how the British Empire helped in civilizing us Indians. In fact that's what they teach in their schools currently. They taught us how Gandhi is a threat to us. Now the books worship him. If we become a communist country tomorrow, we will start embracing the red flag in our books. If I was born in Cuba I would have studied how bad capitalism is, if America then I would have studied, “a good communist is a dead communist." That's the problem.Socrates was killed due to corrupting the youth which was, making them think critically and ask for democracy, questioning god. In today's world god is the political and sociological ideology of a country. Anyone standing against it is an anti national (Socrates).

Can someone please lay out the evidence they have of the marixist labour theory of value? Arguments in its favour seems weak when held against empirical testing, such as a lack of evidence for a falling rate of profit.

I often see self described 'scientific' Marxists online that refuse to test their hypotheses, and instead seems to treat the 'scientific' label as synonymous with 'true', rather than holding their beliefs to any scientific rigour. Let's hope I am proved wrong :)

In imperialist countries by the definition of labor aristocracy, i dont deny there there are proletariat in the western global north but in a global sense could they be considered a labor aristocracy? While in the local sense there are divisions within the society of labor aristocrat and minimum wage workers but on a global sense they all inherently benefit off imperialism? This isnt to undermine the imperialist nation's working class at all but is there like a thing that defines a global labor aristocracy and a local labor aristocracy? Global being every person in a western imperialist nation almost, and local being more privileged workers willing to defend capitalism against even other workers in imperialist countries?

Could you argue the value produced in society under the dictatorship of the proletariat not surplus value since the worker was apart of the society they created, and "surplus" went to the society to advance the democratic society and their collective benefits and needs, while surplus value has a inherent meaning in terms of private profit accumulation? So if it wasnt going in the interests of private gain and profit maximization within businesses, it wasnt surplus value? Or was surplus value still existent and that it was on a proccess of becoming abolished?

Apologies if that is a loaded question. I am interested in civil debate.

A quick glance at statistics shows just how prevalent those people are the higher you go up the managerial ladder (CEOs and politicians). How do you avoid that?

I'm not sure how factual this is, but I saw a claim awhile back on the AskHistorians subreddit that Russian communists were very familiar with Marx's work, while Chinese communists were not, and from my understanding this is a common refrain for those critical of Mao's contributions to Marxism (such as On Contradiction). How valid is this assertion?

Small business owner as 1 location with very limited staff etc

I don't get the logic of some people on communist/socialist subs that claim Russia was somehow "forced" and apparently "had no choice". It all seems extremely clear to me that it was Russia that crossed our border and struck first. I'm looking for a civilized debate, without people yelling "I have no clue" and such, which is unfortunately common on Reddit.

Hello,

I have a genuine question, how would synthetic anarchism work in FALC? Synthesis Anarchism is a Libertarian Left and Unitist ideology which believes in joining all anti-capitalist anarchist ideologies under one movement, also another question, how can the Non Agression principle (NAP)