I am a Marxist, but I also recognize that orthodox Marxist texts, and especially Marx and Engels attempt to analyze different foreign societies, often fell short. This is understandable, as they had limited knowledge of non-European societies and were also effected by the overwhelmingly white supremacist ideology of the time. From my understanding, Marx and Engels largely discounted other non-European societies and treated Europes societal development as a universal model. That said, most critiques I can find of Marxist eurocentrism are explicitly anti-Marxist and subscribe to racialism or other idealist tendencies. Are there any comprohensive critiques of Marxist eurocentrism from actual Marxists?

In Australia barely anyone protests, strikes nor really partakes in class consciousness. Along with this the Socialism movement is far quieter here than In the UK and USA. While we do have fairly good public healthcare, minimum wage and other public services and support I still feel like people should be raising their voice about the falling quality and falling funding of said services. But in Australia we seem to just take it on the the chin and say "Oh well" before moving on.
Can anyother Australian socialists explain why motivations here are so low

Obviously specific organizational methods and pathways to a socialist/communist society are hotly debated, but is there any consensus or well regarded theory on the general effectiveness of putting together a movement? I am talking about guidelines for interacting with the public, putting together propaganda effectively, communicating with other leftists, general strategic concerns that aren’t ideologically specific. Obviously acting in good faith is the first step, but are there any specific practices, also in fields I haven’t mentioned above as well, that help with generally being effective in spreading socialist ideals? If there are they don’t seem to be followed in general, but I am wondering if there is an answer to this from any more well read folks here. Examples from the right on stuff like this would be things like the CIA manual on destabilizing regimes, or the actual strategy being used by the manosphere/alt-right media apparatus

What happen to Germany in WW1 and WW2? People say Germany had very strong most progressive countries in Europe before the Nazis took power? What happen how could very left progressive countries in Europe before the Nazis took power allow for the Nazis to take power.

Why do those countries find Fascism more palatable?

i’m a woman of color, i’ve been a communist for most of my young adult life and increasingly i see leftist spaces are taken over by white communists who denounce identity politics (as you should) and also seem to dismiss the actual existence of racism. i agree that race is a vehicle for class oppression but i’ve been in a lot of spaces now where i’ve experienced racial harassment, been around folks who seem to dismiss the impact of systemic racism and believe that all anti-racist resistance specifically (like BLM) are counterrevolutinary distractions from united class solidarity. i’m writing this after a comrade used a racial slur in private conversation repeatedly and then defended it by saying “language policing is neoliberalism”. idk

i agree that there are major problems with BLM’s leadership, direction, and ideology but i think it’s more reactionary to actively work against BLM’s cause, right? i don’t know, i feel of two worlds about this. i really detest what identity politics have become but i think that’s because they aren’t a radical enough response to the very real problem of racism. maybe i’m wrong and being held back by my own bias as a woman of color.

please share your thoughts. if youve been in my position where you are told this, how do you respond without devolving into identity politics?

This has to do with what determines price.

x = labor type 1, y = labor type 2, and multiplied by time

10x produces product z1

1y produces product z2

product z1 and z2 have absolutely equivalent use-values, with the difference being the labor used to produce them and of course the labor time. They are different in being made by the type of labor x or y(e.g., x is hand-crafted, y is machine pressed). If so, what would make their price the same? How does the Labor Theory of Value deal with different types of labor(by different technologies or tools) that create basically the same outcome of use-value? Supply and demand?

Basically, how do you get everyday innovation? I’ve seen similar questions being asked before, but people always refer to world changing innovations in the answers (like sure, I understand that doctors would still be passionate about studying cancer, etc.)

I’m talking about stuff like a new board game or ’the scrub daddy’. Things that within capitalism might become hugely popular and wanted by the public, even though the ”breakthrough” relies on advertising and the free market. The feeling I get is that within a socialist economy, the likelyhood of your new idea being given a chance becomes significally smaller since it won’t have t he possibility to ”prove itself” if it’s not produced, and it won’t be produced if it hasn’t already proven itself useful or wanted. A catch 22?

I feel like I’m 90% on board with socialism, but there are like 3 or 4 things that keeps giving me the feeling of ”this feels like it would become frustrating in real life”, but most socialists I talk to basically goes ”trust me, bro, it would kinda just work”. Please tell me what I’m missing, because I genuinely would like to be convinced.

I myself am a POC but I recently got into a debate/argument with someone about this. I understand the difference between prejudice and racism but does anyone have a clear reason why this statement’s true? (not here to debate or argue just want to know)

I dont believe in what she says but I always see clips of her “owning” college students, I know alot of her takes are bad bht if anyone has a clear definition of why shes bad?

I hear alot about him but I dont really understand what he says or his beliefs or why hes brought up.

Is it true is there something to say back to that? What was the difference between black slavery and white?

Why there are so many different communist parties, all with few supporters? can't they unite in a biggest party, that can actually manage to do things? (sorry if it isn't a good question)

Hello! This is my first post in reddit but felt like it'd be a great question to ask. I'm looking to follow journalists and media outlets that are more left leaning and actively push back against capitalist media biases and US hegemony.

Could anyone provide me with a few names or social media handles? Could be reporting on global news or the U.S where I currently live. Bonus points if there are any reporters in California or the bay area that do some amazing reporting.

Any suggestions welcome. Thank you so much in advance!

What is an anti-imperialist view of the Arab Spring? I am sure that people had real grievances against their governments, but did any of the protests result in actual progressive improvements? And what was the US role in all of this? Was there a strategy to foment dissatisfaction among people or did they just take advantage of an organic protest movement? Would appreciate any suggested reading or discussion. thanks

I would identify myself as a leftist mostly based on my own independent observations of how the world operates and how the American economic system domestically oppresses its own working class as well serving as an imperial oppressor to the international community on the whole. I am trying to politically educate myself further through reading socialist texts (as well as other ideological literature, but this is irrelevant to the conversation). I am reading through Huey Newton’s Revolutionary Intercommunalism and I have one substantial problem with his interpretation of history through dialectical materialism — I’m assuming his interpretation of dialectical materialism is correct because I have no other basis to go off of. He seems to understand the world revolution (and subsequent transformation into revolutionary intercommunalism and then into global communism) as an inevitable conclusion of the imperial capitalist system we live under, or reactionary intercommunalist system in his words. He says there will be a great motion of action from the working people that will ignite a transformation of the international system into revolutionary intercommunalism and then into communism.

But from my view of history, it would appear to be the case that the international, working class struggle for revolution has came and went. It flared in the early 20th century, continued to climb in size and power in the middle of the same century, and then as we approached the 21st century the great push stagnated, liberalized and collapsed. The last remnants standing of the revolution now have completely abandoned socialism in all but name and operate liberalized government and liberalized economies.

It seems to me that the struggle for communism has been given as good a chance to ignite a world revolution as it could ever be given, and simply failed to materialize. The specter of communism existed in its height as a legitimate and very real threat to the existing capitalist system, and is now something foreign to the reality of today’s society to be taught only in memory of. But how would this be possible if the ignition of such a revolution is in fact an inevitable reality of the dialectical materialist system history operates in submission to? How could the world erupt in a revolutionary struggle at the beginning of a century and said international struggle cease to be a material threat at the end of it, assuming such a thing is the necessary precondition for the destruction of the international imperial system?

I am very much ideologically enticed by what Huey Newton relates in this book, but I need to understand this issue fully before I can come to a real conclusion.

Portrayals of the KGB are unflattering. My first thought when hearing about it is like the start of The Death of Stalin where people are being killed left and right seemingly for little reason (but obviously that is a comedy movie). It is reasonable to believe those depictions are not true or just straight up lies.

When I look it up I get things such as Feliks Dzerzhinsky saying “anyone who dares to spread the slightest rumor against the Soviet regime will be arrested immediately and sent to a concentration camp.” but when I listen to socialist podcasts they say the KGB knocking on your door was the exception to the rule and they only killed or exiled fascists and people actively trying to impose capitalism but I'd prefer to get more evidence first.

This question is not concerning those who actively are exploiting workers and actively are persuing private property in the USSR. It's more concerned about people saying "I heard this rumour about how great Capitalism is" but never actively pursue anything nor look for any power. The same way people would be doubtful of the capitalist system today but still follow it. Even more, what did get you killed if regular doubt and rumours didn't?

Hi comrades.

I have an intermediate understanding of Marx’s work and his concepts of productive vs unproductive labor, lumpen vs proletariat vs petit bourgeoisie vs haute bourgeoisie, etc. But I am insecure about my ability to apply these concepts to the current class landscape of the USA. I feel like there are many new groups of people that blur the lines: celebrities, undocumented immigrants, gig workers, small business owners, influencers, descendants of settlers, well-off middle class people…

I was wondering if anyone knew of any books that use Marx to analyze the US as it exists today that might help me better understand how his terms may be used to describe it.

Thanks!

Most people, even office workers in first world countries that have enough money own a cheap house for themselves to live in are reliant on their ability to exchange their time/ability to work for money to survive.

So are they part of the proletariat or already petie bourgeoisie?

I’m a newish socialist who does a decent job at advocating for socialism online I recently rewatched a Spooky Scary Socialist video debunking anti communist myths and I wanted resources and advice on a few things

1. books or other resources for debunking anti communist or socialist myths

2. a resource for learning about different leftist labels (ML’s, Marxist, anarchists etc) so I have a more specific label I can pin down for myself

3. resources to unlearn myths about countries like Cuba, North Korea etc I know pro capitalists like to bring up those countries

4. other beginner material that I should read or watch

Im currently a capitalist and I’m just curious to the perspective of a socialist to why socialism is that much better than capitalism. I’m not trying to troll, I just want to have healthy dialogue and educate myself more on the topic.

I would like a clear and simple explanation to what capital is and what problems it has. The closest I can see is how this can be misused by the higher class. Please provide links to sources if possible.

Hi, I'm looking for primary sources on the revolution and Thomas Sankara, and I would also like to learn the history leading to the event and up to 1987.

I have been engaging in leftist politics for 5 or so years now, but due to my ADHD I have only ever been able to educate myself through YouTube content. I have decided that I need to read the theory that I have been learning about so that I can better understand the ideas in them, instead of just being taught them by third parties. My ADHD is still preventing me from reading books normally, so the only way I have of accessing the theory is through audiobooks.

Can anyone provide me with a reading list of the basic leftist theory such as Capital, A People's History etc. so that I can more meaningfully engage with the ideas? I am already educated on most of the theory in these texts so it doesn't matter if it's an especially academic and unapproachable book like some of Marx's works.
In short, I would like to hear it straight from the horse's mouth.

I think I have an okay understanding of the concept, but I fail to see it's purpose why make the distinction between value and price? What is this idea to criticize and support

Edit: I think I should rephrase why does the value matter when it is different then the price? what use does defining value like this have?

For more context, this would be for people who are generally social progressives, but don’t seem to have a sense of class consciousness nor do they seem to understand that Democrats are not a party of the working class. Basically, Dems who still think the party is largely fighting the good fight. What should they be given to read to help change their minds?

I’m limited on time since I’m a college student so most of my reading efforts are dedicated to textbooks, IR theory and other political stuff. I’ve found many socialist works very very difficult to get through. I read some revolutionary works from Che, Malcom, and Assata but those were leisure. I picked up Marx and Lenin and while reading them it always feels like I’m missing context. Is there a best order to tackle these works or is it misunderstanding on my part?

Curious because I got into a pretty heated argument the other night with a family member of mine regarding the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian War and the west's complicity in escalations. I've heard from some places that there's proof of Ukrainian officials being handpicked by the U.S., but my cousin said it was all above board and "the democratic will of Ukrainians" or whatever, so I'm getting conflicting stories here.

What is some of the evidence that points towards it being a coup/something similar? I don't have a hard time believing it was one just based on how Ukraine conducts its UN votes like every other vassal/puppet state of the United States but I'd still like to have it on hand in case this topic ever comes up between us again, and in general.