Newbie to Marxist ideology here. Marx wrote a lot, so I wanted to ask if someone could point me in the right direction about a topic I'm interested about.

Namely, the dynamics of power and oppression beyond the class paradigm: the position and role of ethnic minorities in a state, how the working class can and does inflict violence upon minorities, how the bourgeoisie exploits and endorses that violence as a means of control of the working class.

It would be relevant for me that Marx specifically recognizes the existence and particular issues of ethnic minorities and their struggles as victims of the bourgeoisie and the majority working-class both.

As a Marxist Distributist, I believe limited market socialism offers the best way to combine the ideals of social justice and widespread ownership. By fostering worker cooperatives, small family businesses, and individually owned enterprises, we can prevent wealth from concentrating in the hands of a few, while empowering people to take ownership of their labor. Markets can serve a role here, offering room for competition and innovation on a smaller scale, but they must be carefully regulated to avoid monopolies and prevent exploitation. For larger, essential industries, I believe in collective or municipal ownership so that these resources are accountable to the public rather than to private interests.

Limited market socialism, for me, isn’t the end goal; it’s a stepping stone toward a society that values cooperation over profit and social welfare over individual gain. By implementing wealth taxes, profit-sharing, and fair wages, we can dismantle exploitation and create a system that rewards labor fairly. I envision this evolving into a cooperative economy that embodies both local autonomy and mutual aid, a society where resources are distributed equitably, and people feel a real stake in their work and their communities. This approach, I believe, perfectly combines the Distributist respect for personal property with the Marxist dedication to social ownership and class equity, building a fairer, more humane world.

We want to reach the American working class?

Simplify the messaging.

Harris failed to mobilize the critical mass of the working class to her neoliberal campaign for many reasons. However, one reason was that she used language that appealed only to the higher educated, coastal liberals.

We need to amplify leftist populism and political rhetoric.

I don’t mean trying to force feed Marxist dissertations and theories to rural Americans, nor should we be debating workers online about the woes and successes and line struggles of the Soviet Union in 1930 or some foreign country they can’t find on a map.

The American worker just needs to know that their boss and their landlord are fucking them — and in a language they can understand and resonate with. They need to know how to form a labor union. They need to be praised for rolling up their sleeves and becoming working class heroes, not coffee shop book talk academics.

The nuances of the rest will come in time and Revolution.

Organize the union now, essay later.

We have a precedent to step in and offer concrete solutions now before the fascists fill the gap — and they will. Whatever theoretical differences your fragmented socialist organization has with another needs to be put aside. Unite under what we do agree on and form a cohesive working class Front against the neoliberal order.

We've already seen DEI being dismantled and books literally thrown in the garbage in different states. Recently I was listening to Prof Richard Wolff talk about going to school during the red scare and how it affected his ability to learn in class. I'm preparing to go to school within the next year or two to study labor and employment law. I don't believe that the unionizing will slow down in the US, but it will be more difficult. I'd also like to ask if anyone has recommendations for what courses or areas to study in community and then university to enrich a Marxist perspective? I have not spoken to a counselor yet.

So, I'm struggling with an idea I've seen used in some classical theories of value like Ricardo or Marx.

Namely, the classicals take the wage rate as exogenous to the broader price system. So, like, they tend to think of the wage rate as set at the socially determined level of subsistence, to borrow marx's term: the means of consumption.

But the price of the means of consumption is itself determined by the price system right? And therefore, since the wage rate equals that price, how is the wage rate exogenous?

I suppose you could represent it as a portion of all value created, so the wage is say 1/2 of all produced value, but you still need a way to translate that into a price right?

Cause price = (1+ROP) × (resources + price of wage rate) and the price of wage rate = total value produced × proportion of total value allocated to labor.

So how do you translate that into a price? How is the socially determined means of consumption translate into a price which can then be used to calculate values?

I'm honestly frustrated that, in an era where we have apps to find people for casual sex or to sell secondhand items, we still don’t have a widely accessible platform for mutual aid (not just for money), something where people can connect locally and offer or receive support for essential needs of all kinds.

We have the technology for instant connections, yet no coordinated platform for the working class, disabled individuals, or anyone needing assistance with daily problems people face. Imagine if there was an app that made it as easy to find a volunteer for grocery shopping, help with transportation, or skill-sharing as it is to find a used couch or a date. Instead, we have communities full of people needing support and others willing to offer it, but no accessible way to bring them together.

Some might argue that funding such a platform would be the main challenge, but I’m not convinced that’s the biggest issue. We see individuals crowdfunding significant amounts of money on platforms like GoFundMe all the time. Plus, with the collective strength of leftist communities, crowdfunding and mutual aid for setup and upkeep costs (like server hosting) would be achievable if the right people coordinated it.

What we really need is for IT professionals who are committed to mutual aid to offer their skills voluntarily to put this idea into practice and I refusd to believe there are no leftist ITers out there (in particular cause so many people in IT will do random projects to boost their portfolio).

1. Backend Developer/DevOps - Luckily, we already have someone for this role who can handle the server, databases, and other infrastructure.
2. Frontend Developer - To build a responsive and accessible interface for web and mobile.
3. UI/UX Designer - To make the platform intuitive, inclusive, and welcoming for all users.
4. QA Tester - To ensure everything functions well across devices and meets accessibility standards.

Beyond tech skills, we’d need people dedicated to keeping the platform financially sustainable and accessible. Ideally, we’d have folks committed to organizing mutual aid and gathering ongoing resources to help with monthly maintenance, like server costs, and finding volunteers for outreach /advertising the platform.

Political ideologies are hollow if they don’t translate into practical action, and I truly believe that if we had an easy way to connect, thousands of people would be eager to offer time, resources, or skills for their communities. Yes, grassroots organizing through local groups is vital, but let’s be real, many community orgs struggle to meet the needs of all members, especially disabled and low-income folks. Many don’t even provide basic accommodations, like masking, which excludes some people from even participating.

So, if you're a leftist IT professional or just someone with resources or passion for mutual aid, let’s make this happen. Reach out to me, and let’s talk about building a platform that can truly bring mutual aid into our communities in a sustainable, accessible way.

(And yes I understand "it is all not THAT easy", but nothing about our lives is "easy". That should not be used as an argument to avoid helping eachother).

It feels like US gone in Time Machine and we are experiencing President Nixon and president Reagan term all over again but this time Trump.

Is Trump more far right than President Nixon and president Reagan?

Many people on left talk about President Nixon and president Reagan being time in America history being very hard core conservatives and far right.

But I’m wounding compered to Tump is Tump more hard core conservatives than President Nixon or president Reagan.

People tell me the US is experience now major push back to hard core conservatives days and that is the reason we have Trump.

But some say Trump is more hard core conservatives and fascism than President Nixon and president Reagan.

Comrades,

Donald Trump has won the 2024 U.S. presidential election, securing a return to power and an extension of his influence over the political and social fabric of American capitalism. His victory, while shocking to liberals and progressives, offers no surprise to those who understand the nature of bourgeois democracy and the state as an instrument of class power. The task before us is to analyze this event not merely as a shift in personalities or parties, but as a profound revelation of the deep contradictions within American capitalism and the limitations of electoral politics. We must, as ever, seek the historical and material meaning of this development, and understand its implications for the proletarian struggle.

To understand the significance of Trump’s victory, we must first examine the role that the two-party system plays in sustaining the rule of capital in the United States. For decades, American politics has been defined by an apparent rivalry between the Republican and Democratic parties, yet both are united in their ultimate allegiance to the interests of the capitalist class. The “choice” offered to the American people every four years is thus not a choice between fundamentally different social systems or visions for society, but rather a choice between different factions within the same ruling class. This bipartisan structure serves a singular purpose: to mask the real workings of class power and to forestall the emergence of an independent, proletarian alternative.

Trump’s return to power is, in one sense, simply the continuation of this pattern. His populist rhetoric and authoritarian policies do not represent a break with the American tradition, but rather an intensification of it. The capitalist class, confronted with the growing crises of inequality, climate catastrophe, and social decay, increasingly resorts to reactionary and authoritarian methods to maintain its rule. Trump’s platform of militarized borders, assaults on democratic rights, and inflammatory nationalism is merely the logical response of a ruling class that feels its power slipping away. The Democrats, while appealing to liberal sensibilities and promising incremental reforms, have shown themselves to be utterly impotent in resisting this drift. They serve only to pacify the working class and divert it from revolutionary struggle.

In this light, the disillusionment now felt by millions of progressive and liberal voters is both predictable and potentially fertile ground for the growth of revolutionary consciousness. The failure of the Democratic Party to prevent Trump’s re-election, despite their rhetoric of resistance and reform, has exposed the hollowness of their promises. Workers, young people, and marginalized communities who hoped that electoral change could bring meaningful improvement to their lives are now confronted with the stark reality that the state, in its current form, exists not to serve the people but to preserve the interests of a small class of capitalists. This disillusionment should not be ignored, nor should it be met with scorn by Communists. Instead, it presents us with an opportunity to reach out to those who are beginning to see the limitations of bourgeois democracy and to guide them toward a deeper understanding of the class struggle.

However, it is not enough simply to criticize the failures of bourgeois democracy. We must also articulate a clear vision of the alternative: a proletarian state, organized around the interests and needs of the working class rather than the dictates of capital. Our task is to build independent working-class organizations—workers’ councils, unions, and community assemblies—that are capable of exercising real power outside the constraints of electoral cycles and bourgeois institutions. These organizations must be grounded in democratic principles, accountable to the proletariat, and oriented toward the dismantling of the capitalist state. In every struggle—whether for labor rights, racial justice, or environmental sustainability—our aim must be to foster class consciousness and to link these struggles to the larger fight for socialism.

Trump’s re-election also highlights the adaptability of bourgeois democracy. In periods of stability, the capitalist state presents itself as a liberal, democratic institution committed to protecting individual rights. But in periods of crisis, it reveals its true character as an instrument of repression. Trump’s campaign promises of “law and order,” his readiness to use military force against protestors, and his appeals to nativist and racist sentiments are not aberrations but strategies. They are designed to channel the discontent of the working masses away from class struggle and toward reactionary scapegoats, whether immigrants, minorities, or political dissidents. In this context, it becomes even more crucial that Communists oppose these reactionary narratives, exposing them as distractions from the true cause of social misery: the capitalist system itself.

The authoritarian turn in American politics is not unique. Across the capitalist world, from Brazil to Hungary to India, ruling classes are adopting similar strategies to secure their power. These regimes, though different in style, are united by their reliance on repression and nationalism to hold together societies fractured by inequality and injustice. Trump’s victory, therefore, must be understood as part of a global trend—a sign of a capitalist system in decay, increasingly unable to resolve its contradictions through democratic means. International solidarity among the working class becomes all the more essential in this context. Just as capital is organized globally, so too must be our resistance. We must strengthen ties with proletarian movements around the world, learning from their struggles and sharing resources and strategies to combat the reactionary forces that confront us all.

Finally, we must address a dangerous illusion that may persist among certain segments of the disillusioned liberal and progressive masses: the belief that a future election, with a different candidate, could somehow reverse the tide of reaction. This cycle of hope and disappointment, which plays out every four years, is itself one of the primary mechanisms by which the capitalist state maintains control. Each election is framed as a decisive battle for the soul of the nation, and yet, no matter the outcome, the fundamental structures of exploitation and inequality remain untouched. Communists must break this cycle by offering a long-term vision of struggle that transcends the boundaries of electoral politics.

This does not mean disengaging from all forms of political participation; rather, it means building structures of power that are independent of the capitalist state. These structures—workers’ councils, community assemblies, and independent unions—must serve as the seeds of a new society, capable of exercising real power and laying the groundwork for a revolutionary transformation. They must be spaces for political education, where workers can learn about the nature of the state, the history of class struggle, and the necessity of a socialist alternative. They must also be centers of solidarity, bringing together labor struggles, anti-racist movements, environmental campaigns, and other forms of resistance into a united front against capital.

In conclusion, Trump’s victory is not merely a setback for liberalism; it is a profound revelation of the capitalist system’s inability to meet the needs of the people. This moment calls for clear-sighted analysis and disciplined organization. We must stand firm in our principles, exposing the illusions of bourgeois democracy and pointing the way toward a proletarian alternative. The path forward lies not in electoral cycles, but in the building of a revolutionary movement that can operate outside and against the capitalist state.

This is the task history has set before us. Let us meet it with the courage and clarity that our revolutionary forebears have shown. The proletariat does not need another liberal savior; it needs a movement capable of seizing power, dismantling the capitalist state, and building a socialist society. This is our call to action.

What is the psychology assessment of neo con fascism alt right?

So most countries have liberal and conservative parties but in the US the conservative party has been moving more to right with the neo con and fascism views. I remember when Bush was in power he was painted has fascism and hard core conservative. But today he would be a liberal compared to Trump and where GOP is today. When you look at Trump and Ron Desantis you see how party has moved more to right.

So what is driving this move to the right? And why are the politicians more crazy like now and why can’t you have politicians with Trump views but speak like Bush than Trump that speaks like a third grader and more crazy like. Why is it that moving more to the right is losing the ability to speak and more crazy like?

But now it seems the GOP and conservative people hate Bush now but love Trump. So there is more of shift to right. I would think in 10 to 15 years from now Trump would be very liberal because the GOP would move even more to right than where Trump is today.

It like the US is being split in middle moving away unless that the news media is doing?

But I don’t know why every new president the GOP moves more to right, I remember the Bush days and how he was hated and viewed has hard core conservative and now liberals would love for Bush to win over Trump or Ron Desantis.

There is even some liberals hoping Ron Desantis would win over Trump because of the similar views but he less crazy like and speaks better. But again in 10 to 15 years from now Trump would be very liberal because the GOP would move even more to right than where it is today.

So has any psychologist or psychiatrist done a psychology assessment of neo con fascism alt right and where the US going down rabbit hole of mental hospital in the way they talk and the way things are going? Moving more to ultra right but talking like kid in third grade. What is causing this?

I mean psychiatrists or psychologists assessment with dumb down effect of the way the person is talking and crazy like not so much politically be it centrist, right, far right or super far right or fascism. What causing the person to speak like a third grader and be crazy like.

Unless you saying fascism speak very strange like and known to be more crazy like in views and beliefs. Than in that case there are some elements of fascism.

Trump was just known to say one thing than the next day say no I did not say that and is also known to talk about military intelligence. He speaking his mind if he was little boy age 8. Trump was just speaking his mind like little boy not trying act like a polish businesses man or president.

And Trump grammar and speaking at third grader level. The problem is the GOP and people that vote for Trump are okay with the dumb down effect now. If this continues in the next 15 years some one will be speaking at first grader level or even worse not be able to speak at all because of the dumbing down effect.

Did Hitler and Mussolini have better speaking abilities?

Also President Nixon and president Reagan were known for the proxy wars with USSR and hardcore conservative views but had better speaking abilities.

Today President Nixon and president Reagan would be far right conservative but they did not have the crazy views, crazy conspiracy like QAnon, grammar and speaking at a third grader level.

Unless this is some about fascism that they have poor thinking and speaking ability and known to be crazy. But again have no idea how Hitler and Mussolini acted compared to Trump.

Don't judge me for this if it was a bad idea. I subscribed to the new "Red America" journal of the American Communist Party and it was very insightful, it made me feel seen and heard, and made me feel optimistic about class unity and all. Then, I saw Jackson Hinkle (an actual anti-semitic, anti-trans, pro-Trump right-wing grifter who is so obviously using the situation in Palestine to gain followers and other nefarious purposes) be mentioned as being a founder of the American Communist Party... And that left me with a horrible taste in my mouth as I read on. Here's the excerpt from it with the context:

"... While we could never embrace MAGA politics, we refuse to condemn and turn our backs on MAGA’s base, millions of Americans who thrive for economic equality and justice. General Secretary of the American Communist Party Haz Al-Din explains he and anti-imperialist social media influencer Jackson Hinkle’s creative success in outsmarting algorithms and reaching everyday workers who identify as MAGA: “We have a saying, as MAGA communists, which is that when you go to McDonald’s, you don’t go for the clown, you go for the burger. Trump is the mascot of the movement.” Their approach, which reached tens of millions, mostly through Hinkle’s twitter account which has 2.8 million followers, was designed to be offensive to liberals and their woke world views so as to win over MAGA loyalists who were stuck in the cultural war but reject the liberal elites. Tongue in cheek and flippant, the duo even chided that mouthpieces of the woke left should be “deported.” Where else can we “deplorables” turn, if the woke left thinks they are better than us? Both founders of the ACP, they pushed back against the spectrum of liberal leftists who they felt were playing right into the hands of the Scapegoater and Demagogue in Chief."

They make the case for liberals being the "fox" and Trump being the "wolf", and I understand all that. But Hinkle being affiliated with this makes me nauseous and doesn't sit right with me at all. I remember hearing about Hinkle being in a picture with someone from an intelligence agency and it just makes me feel like he was planted to use the Left's language to try to appeal to us for MAGA's gain. He is a "MAGA Communist" after all, which doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Needless to say, I'm very skeptical of the ACP now and I need someone to make it make sense. What does one TRUE well-intentioned Marxist-Leninist make of this?

As the title suggests, im not a marxist. However, I do study it and I do study the history of the Soviet Union. My question is fairly simple and very blunt:

(Assuming you believe that the Soviet Union did commit atrocities) Why do you think it was bad? Why was the red terror bad, why was dekulakization bad, why was the gulag bad, the purges and so on, why were they bad?

I'm currently reading the manifesto and I don't see any basis in it for denouncing these as bad. Several times Marx and Engels denounce and express their disdain for traditional values, morals, law, etc. What other basis than "its bad because I feel that it is bad" do you have?

P.S.

This question is clearly not for those based commies who accept that the soviet union committed atrocities and think it was good (or at least that it wasn't bad).

I am a relatively new leftist. If I'm beong honest- I fell in hard and have been using Chat GPT to learn more about the questions I have. I love what I'm learning about marxism, socialism, and even anarchy, but I was wondering where an individualist marxist would fit into the "political compass" of socislism.

Let me explain, I understand that barebones marxist theory predicts that capatalism will collapse and we will someday become a communistic society. Personally- I'm not there on communism, I worry that a collectivist society sounds repressive, and I feel that places like cuba, who executed its gay population- did so because they felt the "gay identity" has no place in collective society.

I do like marxist and socialist ideologies- but if I'm being honest- collectivism is a concept that I'm just very icy too. Can someone explain where individualism's place in marxist society could lie?

(P.s. I'm new to this sub, I'm new-ish to this way of thinking, but I feel that I've finally politically activated and I'm seeing the world through a new lense that finally makes sense. If I said something stupid, please correct me and explain. I'm here to learn but I'm rusty)

(For more context, I'm a U.S. citizen, white male 28, I'm appalled by capatalism, I have an anti-borshuasee mindset, I understand the conflict between them and the Proletariat, I feel passionate anger about colonialism, inequality, homeless, racism, sexism, bigotry, and I fully understand how Capatalism is a big part of the root cause- so much so that I can't even vote for Harris because Dems/libs piss me off too. I was raised conservative, became a lib, is now far-left, I think Trump is a fascist. Since seeing the world through a marxist perspective I feel sickeningly enlightened/obsessed- but ultimately wiser as a person who sees a truth kept hidden from me all this time. Weirdest of all, my value/love for humanity has somehow increased in the most bizzarest of ways- considering that I feel some of whats been happening is monstrous. Everyone has a worth far beyond monetary value- and its sick that we assign humans "worth")

I was under the impression that an increase in wages would result in a corresponding increase in the price of commodities so that the capitalist can maintain the same profit margin. However, Marx argues that an increase in wages doesn't necessarily result in an increase in prices. Is this because profit is determined by the surplus value produced by labor power and not by a determined price which exceeds the natural value of the commodity? In other words, does this mean that when there's an increase in wages, the working class receives a greater share of the surplus value?

I'm so used to the idea that the capitalist offsets wage increases with price increases in order to sustain the equivalent profit margin.

Marx quoted

“Capital is said by a Quarterly Reviewer to fly turbulence and strife, and to be timid, which is very true; but this is very incompletely stating the question. Capital eschews no profit, or very small profit, just as Nature was formerly said to abhor a vacuum. With adequate profit, capital is very bold. A certain 10 per cent. will ensure its employment anywhere; 20 per cent. certain will produce eagerness; 50 per cent., positive audacity; 100 per cent. will make it ready to trample on all human laws; 300 per cent., and there is not a crime at which it will scruple, nor a risk it will not run, even to the chance of its owner being hanged. If turbulence and strife will bring a profit, it will freely encourage both. Smuggling and the slave-trade have amply proved all that is here stated.” (T. J. Dunning, l. c., pp. 35, 36.)

This is from "Trades' unions and strikes: their philosophy and intention" book, which was published in 1860, while Das Kapital was published in 1867. What was the meaning of "Capital" in the quoted book if it's not Marx's definition of Capital?

Also, when Marx quoted this, did he want the reader to comprehend Capital as in his definition or the quoted author's definition?

I translated the quotes to english. I am wondering if these are indeed coincide with his views?

"Marx was against blind revolutionism. In the International he fought against those who were in favor of revolution as a matter of principle, against those who said that revolution must be carried out because it is necessary. The essence of Marx's thought is this: Revolution, to be successful, must come at the right moment; society cannot be transformed unless its economic development makes it ripe for change."

"Capitalism is ripe for change. The new system cannot be prepared "on order". Just as capitalism arose and developed out of feudalism, so the new system must arise and develop out of the old one, capitalism. We must look for the seeds of a new social system in the development of capitalist society itself."

Excerpt From Leo Huberman, Paul Sweezy

I've been repeatedly suspended and apparently now permanently banned (pending my appeal) because I have made good faith arguments that contradict the mods' personal views.

In this case, I raised concern about adults using children in advertising, regardless of the fact the video was amateur pro-Palestinian content. There were numerous jump cuts that clearly show how scripted it is that these children are saying, and that they don't believe this themselves.

Why do we let these mods control r/socialism as if they privately own the space?

Hello, I was wondering if anyone could recommend me any books or articles on passion (for a subject) in capitalism. I went down a rabbit hole yesterday and looked up some articles about how to know if you're passionate about a subject. It got me wondering since the article said stuff like "you want to do it all the time" or "you don't notice the time passing when you're doing what you're passionate about" or even "you forget to eat/sleep because of it". Does anyone else feel like it's convenient for the ruling class to feed the proletariat ideas like this? That if you're not willing to work yourself to the bone it's simply because you're not passionate enough. Don't get me wrong, I'm passionate about music and sometimes I don't notice time go by, and I do want to practice everyday and occasionally I'll even forget to eat for a bit (but I'll always eventually remember). But my passion is still work, even if I enjoy it. It tires me out, and I don't want to do it all the time, because it's exhausting. Am I reading too much into this? Does anyone agree/disagree with me or has any resources on this subject? Thanks in advance.

Hey all!

Sorry if this is a superficial question in the grand scheme of things, but I'd really appreciate some help.

So I've been reading Lukacs for some time now, namely the internet version available at the Marxist archive. However, I've finally decided to buy the actual book. Now, the print by MIT is ridiculously expensive. I simply refuse to pay that. However, the one by Verso Books and the one by Merlin Press I've read negative reviews about, mainly regarding errors in the text. Does anyone here have any experience with the latter two versions of the English translation? It's half the price of the MIT one, but I'm afraid I'll purchase a commodity with no use-value.

Thanks in advance ^^

I got banned for having commented in the 'democrat' subreddit. (First red flag).

In their ban text it stated that you can appeal if you are actually a communist/leftist that got banned by one of their filters. I replied by asking: can you give me a definition of those terms so i can decide if i want to be a part of this?

THEIR RESPONSE WAS: DO YOU SUPPORT CHINA? Screenshotted the interaction below;

I’m completely new to Marxism, a total blank page and trying to find a good jumping point for my study. I’ve read this sub’s posts for a few days now and it seems like the most common advice to read sources from Marx himself and not learn through secondary sources? So which book should I start with and which to further read after that?

Quoting Losurdo: "Marx, who knew phenomenology very well, resolves the difficulty by corresponding (in the Critique of the Gotha Program) the two different ways of declining 'equality' (which is always partial and limited) to two different states of development. of post-capitalist society: in the socialist stage, distribution according to an 'equal right', that is, reciprocating with equal measure the work provided by each unique and always different individual, produces an evident inequality in remuneration and income in this sense; the 'equal right' is nothing other than the 'right of inequality'. In the communist stage, the equal satisfaction of different needs also entails an inequality in the distribution of resources, but the enormous development of the productive forces, fully satisfying the needs of everyone, makes such inequality unimportant. In other words, in socialism, material equality is no longer possible;

But what about natural limitations? Well, let's imagine that there is a huge development of the productive forces, this will require the ever greater extraction of natural resources from nature, resources that today we see will soon end (such as oil) how can we deal with this?

Furthermore, I really have difficulty understanding how the market logic will completely overcome. Who will define what my “needs” are? Since items are no longer bought and sold but distributed, I imagine there will be a body to determine what everyone's "needs" are, but I really can't see that working

Wierd question, but is there any way I can use a B.A. in PolySci to just help people? I know that's vague, but I have a reason. I'm interested in PolySci as my main passion is reading political history and theory, and I wanted to be able to enhance that knowledge through a degree so that I could use it towards my home state of Mississippi. I want to find out what its problems are and help solve them with my passion, in other words. I thought I'd ask here to get the a unique perspective.

PS: I don't have a degree, I'm still in High School, so please excuse any of my ignorance on the subject lol.

Thanks!

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

Hi, I am living in the UK and have applied to join the RCP. I filled out the short form online and explained in very brief why I want to join them. They said that they would get back to me. This is the first time I am organising with any party, and was wondering what I should expect in the process. Would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks!

Please help fundraise for my friend and his family who are still trapped in Gaza.

I am trying to help my friend, Yamen, fundraise for his family while they are still trapped in Gaza. His family is large, including many children, and both of his parents need urgent surgery.

In the link, you can read more about him and his family, but if you can, please consider donating or sharing. Anything helps, no matter how small.

They are getting so close to reaching their goal and being able to get to Egypt for safety!! His parents will be able to get the surgery they desperately need. He also has many young nieces and nephews struggling to find food and medicine to treat the illnesses that are rampant in Gaza. One of his nephews, an absolutely precious little boy named Khaled, was born during the war and has never known peace. Thank you to all who read this and consider helping ❤️ Gofundme

Any one know any leftist info dump.onions?

So I have been seeing a lot of chat rooms/ info dumps pop up in the .onion relms of the internet lately and I was wondering if any one knows of any leftist or at the very fucking least not alt white info dump sites or chatroom.onions because so far I have been able to find dick all that isn't HEAVY on the alt white side of things I have a fuckton of direct action, first aid, manufacturing, combat, manuals that I want to distribute but don't feel like redit is the place to do it

What does the word 'reactionary' specifically mean in Marxist terms? Is it the antonym of 'progressive', and why?

As in Henry Winston:

'In Marcuse’s view, the working class was hopelessly reactionary and contentedly integrated into the system – the upholders, not the gravediggers, of capitalism.'

I'm doing research for a themed party and I'm watching old propaganda to get some clips. I came across this one and it's kind of amazing that all the examples of how "Marx was wrong" got reversed in the 1980s under Reagan. "Workers aren't exploited because we have labor unions", "American peacefully transitions power", "Politicians come from the working class" etc

https://youtu.be/JNk9ZFqTt-Q?si=8toARlycCTqPEOKO

So, I've been involved in a couple orgs over the last few years and something I've noticed is a strong tendency towards forming cliques, particularly a 'leadership clique'. It seems, again just from what I've seen, like the handful of people willing to put the work in actually steering the group - understandably - end up forming stronger bonds with eachother than the people who just show up to stuff. But this tendency seems to turn in on itself over time and ends up passively excluding those on the "outside" who want to contribute more. Again from my experience (I doubt, or at least hope it's not a universal thing), I have a more focused area of interest (environment, public health, and the economic forces behind their enshittification) and have been offering to run events, discussions, presentations etc for the better part of the year and have been met with silence in each and every case - proposals not finding their way to the agenda, requests for feedback ignored or "we'll get to it later" for months until I give up on following up, etc. Not even a "no." And the question of "what can I do?" Is always answered with "just keep coming to stuff" while leadership makes it sound like they're drowning in the workload. As you can imagine, it's quite frustrating.

I'm not just here to complain, though. I have to go back home soon (I'm from a different country) and my hometown has no real orgs to speak of, so I'm planning on starting my own education-focused org. I want to avoid this clique-ism at all costs - it's demotivating, counterproductive, and contributes to burnout among the usual suspects - but am at a loss for active measures to take against. Any thoughts?

I want to finally get to reading communist manifesto, but I'm a non-native english speaker. I do think my english is good as I have 0 problem talking in english with friends, but it's a bit different when it comes to more "professional" language, esp in the area I'm not knowledgeable in. I'm a newbie Marxist and only been interested in politics for a year, and it's mainly just following online content creators. My native language is polish, and I was wondering what was your choice in which language you read Marx in?