249,568 Subscribers


Please suggest Disabled Communists/Socialists for a zine

Hello, I am working on a mini biography series zine and need additional disabled communists. Please suggest some to me if I have missed any:

Antionio Gramsci, Ernesto 'Che' Guevara, Eşber Yağmurdereli, E.T. (Eugene Thornton) Kingsley, Bradford Lomax, Frida Kahlo, Helen Keller, Joseph Stalin, Karl Marx, Leslie Feinberg, Marinus van der Lubbe, Musa Piroğlu, Lev Vgotsky, Raphael Samuel, Rosa Luxemburg, Yakov Batyuk.

This is the first zine, which can be downloaded as a free PDF here: https://seditionist.uk/distro/readables/zine/disabled-communists-and-anarchists/

The second zine, which is mostly finished but still needs 3 more communists can be seen here : https://imgur.com/a/disabled-communists-anarchists-vol-2-zine-99PeooD

10:18 UTC


Why did East Germany fail?

From what i’ve read on the GDR and East Germany, they seem like they sucked and they needed to build a whole wall to keep people from leaving. Why does this socialist state get so much hate and a bad rep?

06:55 UTC


Any books on computer science from a Marxist (-Leninist) perspective

I know it's very niche, but I'm wondering if there are any books on computer science, programming and computer technology in particular (not technology in general) from a Marxist (-Leninist) perspective? I'm not very interested in postmodern and strictly academic theory.

Any recommendations?

14:12 UTC


Resources for Marxist examinations of the economic stagnation in Eastern Europe leading up to the collapse of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc?

I'd love to get some recommendations for books, papers, articles, etc. examining the economic situation surrounding the economic stagnation in Eastern Europe and the USSR during the 1970s and 1980s from a Marxist perspective. I've searched around here and communism101 and found a lot of people giving their own opinions but I couldn't find any recommended reading on the subject.

08:18 UTC


Book recommendations on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat?

I'm looking for books talking about the theory and practice of proletarian rule, specially relatively modern ones studying the real praxis of proletarian dictatorship from the Paris Commune to modern Nepal. I don't mind non-ML authors (trots, french maoists, even anarchists), just insightful stuff. I've already read a lot of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Hoxha, Yao Wenyuan, Zhang Chunquiao, Kim Jong-Il, Guevara and Deng Xiaoping, so other authors are very encouraged.

I think that one major theoretical task (perhaps the most important one) of communists today is to synthesize and propose a credible program to implement the proletarian dictatorship, since historical experience appears to show that the Party-state model defended by orthodox Marxism-Leninism (and I say this as a honest ML) creates a contradiction within the dictatorship between the Party and the whole class, replicating in a way capitalist relations of production (intellectual work vs manual work, "managerial" thinking in the leadership vs parochial apoliticism in the greater mass of the class).

While on the other hand, the different experiments with "Commune-type" dictatorship or democratic socialism have been unable to defend themselves or provide a political center to guide the revolutionary project without devolving into bourgeois democracy.

18:06 UTC


Question about Jason W. Moore and his modification of Marx

What do you think of the work of Jason W. Moore and his modification of key elements of Marx's critique of political economy? I have noticed that he has gained some popularity in Marxist and environmental circles and that he is at odds with some of the Marxists, primarily Malm and Foster. Moore considers himself a Marxist. It's strange to me that there are very few polemics about his work, especially Marxist ones, since it somehow modifies Marx's theory of value. The law of value becomes the law of cheap nature, and the law of the tendency of the profit rate to fall becomes the tendency of the ecological surplus to fall. While Foster and Malm disagree with Moore primarily on the problem of the relationship between nature and society, I have been able to find only one text that criticizes Moore from the perspective of Marx's critique of political economy. It is a text by Jean Parker, entitled Ecology and Value Theory.

1 Comment
16:25 UTC


A question about Marx economics

I recently entered the economic part of marxism. The first thing I read about was Carlo Cafiero's The Capital Resume (liked by Karl Marx himself), then I went and started reading Wage-Labour and Capital by Marx. I thought it was going to be a easier text by him to look out, and it really is. Not so much hard language and things like that. But there's a part of it I've been struggling to understand

Acording to Cafiero's resume, the Relative Surplus Value is the form of the capitalist to generate profit for him, by decreasing the time of the necessary work, the work the worker do to generate his salary, while the rest of it is generating surplus value

Then this part of the Wage Labour and Capital hits me:

^(''If, then, the supply of a commodity is less than the demand for it, competition among the sellers is very slight, or there may be none at all among them. In the same proportion in which this competition decreases, the competition among the buyers increases. Result: a more or less considerable rise in the prices of commodities.)

^(It is well known that the opposite case, with the opposite result, happens more frequently. Great excess of supply over demand; desperate competition among the sellers, and a lack of buyers; forced sales of commodities at ridiculously low prices.'')

My question is, why is the capitalist worried in the price of the commodity or the selling of it if the worker already generate the capitalist profit ?

Sorry if my question is dumb, I really struggle with reading and undertanding things like that, but I appreciate if someone can give me an answer to that

03:34 UTC


Failed coup d'état in Bolivia

Yesterday, as you probably are aware, there was an attempted coup d'état by the military in Bolivia. Gladly the coup failed and the conspirators were arrested.

Anyway, although it was amazing seeing the masses of Bolivia gathering around to defend their progressive government and to beat up the soldiers, it is the second time in a short time span that there is an attempt to overthrow the left wing goverments that have been governing Bolivia.

On one hand, and this is the first topic i want to discuss, it seems that the fascists might return to power eventually in Bolivia, considering that the leaders of Bolivia fail in repressing the counterevolucionaires appropriately and in implementing a dictatorship of the proletariat, the only thing that can truly secure the gains made by the recent governments and advance them either further with the installation of a socialist planned economy.

However, and this is the other thing I want to talk about, it seems that the conventional reactionary coups aren't really working anymore, atleast in South America. It seems to me, (and I may be wrong, I haven't study this properly) that coups nowadays are taking different forms, like the one that happened in Brazil against Dilma or the ones from time to time that sort of happen in Portugal or Spain (there was an succesful one last year in Portugal, and an failed one in Spain). It seems that the modern coups happen with the Justice System inventing accusations against slightly (very slightly) progressive governments and forcing new elections and a new right wing government.

Anyways, I would like to hear your thoughts on this, both on Bolivia and Coups in general.

11:28 UTC


Does anyone have access to the preface of "Lenin's Fight Against Revisionism and Opportunism" by Cheng Yen-Shih?

Hi comrades, we (Nobody Owns Land) are currently in the process of editing a version of the 1965 book "Lenin's Fight Against Revisionism and Opportunism" which can be printed from any home printer and bound through perfect-binding for easy distribution by comrades anywhere. However, we've found that every PDF of this book online has (frustratingly) omitted the preface entirely and we can't find a copy for sale anywhere. We have found this work on marxists.org which appears to quote the preface in its entirety, but we're hesitant to use it as we can't verify whether it's actually the unabridged preface or not.

So we thought to reach out here to see if anyone here might have access to a physical copy in order to verify that this is genuinely the full preface. Alternatively, if someone has access to a more complete PDF that would be incredible.

22:47 UTC


How would guerrilla warfare in western countries work?

I’ve read guerrilla warfare by mao, and also studied it in other countries. The problem about the west though is that most of the people that would be sympathetic to the cause are the urban population. Almost of revolutions in the 20th centuries were in rural agrarian countries with vast areas of sparsely populated areas like how Cubans started in the sierra maestra or Vietnam and China.

The difference with the soviet revolution is they had the army on their side which I don’t see happening, at least on a large scale, in America. Would guerrilla groups pull off urban infiltration? How would a group extricate themselves? How would they form bases of operation? It almost seems that Marx and Engels were incorrect and that mao was correct about less developed countries being the ones able to revolt.

How would urban combat work without being completely wiped? The only example I can think of is the IRA but I haven’t read that book yet.

Edit: mao said the guerillas must have the loyalty of the people and that they must be able to move in and out/ extricate themselves against a concentrated force but I don’t see that being possible here in west

17:28 UTC


Any thoughts about ICOR?

Some explanation about goals and means, position in marxist internationals? Anything?! My organization belong to them and don't really know what to think about it.

09:20 UTC


What are your opinions on the Communist Party of Kenya?

On the outset, they look like a typical revisionist party, which they probably are, with their praise of modern China's ''socialism'' and membership in reactionary alliances like the ICOR and WAP but what I find interesting is that they began as a explicitly social democratic organisation but officially transitioned into a Marxist Leninist party by 2019. The CPK states that this was possible due the efforts of he party's youth wing who ''came out and redeemed the dignity of the party and restored its lost glory'' which lead to ''debates'' about leftist ideology in the party, their political tradition hailing from underground student movements in Kenya during Moi's regime.

I find it peculiar because the CPK is clearly limited by revisionism but it's usually the trend for revisionist organisations to abandon Marxism-Leninism and degrade into social democracy, but in Kenya, the situation is the opposite so far. It does make me curious about the direction of the party.

I guess though, it says more about the revolutionary masses of Kenya that they were organised and powerful enough to pressure a Social Democratic party into formally abandoning its ideology in favour of Marxism Leninism at a time of global retreat for the communist movement; more than it says about the actual party itself, though perhaps there's potential for a progressive movement to spawn from it but I am not that familiar with the situation in Kenya.

17:01 UTC


Rant on "History is decided by the Victors"

It makes no sense to me how so many liberals that bash Stalin and Mao constantly praise this dictum written by Robespierre of all people. Strangely, it is hegemonic knowledge, yet at the same time, the same people constantly side with the capitalist victors. There is such a bizarre belief in bourgeois revisionist historians prominent in American academia because of their bourgeois revisionism. Like while there are some radical brilliant theorists in academia, if you look at any poli sci department you will see constant reformist liberals that justify the system, if not your outright neo conservative Straussians. Even for the radical theorists, most fall into Cold War representations of Stalin, Mao, and other communists that lacks a really transformative material project along with the necessary social(or cultural!) revolutions. Like with everyone who criticizes Stalin and Mao, where are you getting your information? From the victor? It just makes no sense to me how there is so little historiographical awareness from people on how they receive educaiton, as if the more degrees and not the onto-epistmeological narratives/background one is in is not 100x more important. Classism also plays a heavy role in this, as well as the concentration of knowledge production in academia. I am not saying you can't critique Stalin or Mao. I am just saying be honest with yourselves when you read your wikipedia articles my god.

23:49 UTC


Has anyone got any book recommendations on tsarist russia in the period leading up to the revolution?

Want to read more about Nicholas II rule but looking on history subreddits only gets me results for that montefiore book that tries to "humanize" the tsar jewslayer help me please

14:54 UTC


Bi-Weekly Discussion Thread - (June 23)

We made this because Reddit's algorithm prioritises headlines and current events and doesn't allow for deeper, extended discussion - depending on how it goes for the first four or five times it'll be dropped or continued.

Suggestions for things you might want to comment here (this is a work in progress and we'll change this over time):

  • Articles and quotes you want to see discussed
  • 'Slow' events - long-term trends, org updates, things that didn't happen recently
  • 'Fluff' posts that we usually discourage elsewhere - e.g "How are you feeling today?"
  • Discussions continued from other posts once the original post gets buried
  • Questions that are too advanced, complicated or obscure for r/communism101

Mods will sometimes sticky things they think are particularly important.

Normal subreddit rules apply!

[ Previous Bi-Weekly Discussion Threads may be found here https://old.reddit.com/r/communism/search?sort=new&restrict_sr=on&q=flair%3AWDT ]

00:00 UTC


Communist Initiative of Cyprus: "Cyprus is directly involved in the massacre in Gaza – Stop all cooperation with Israel"

14:47 UTC


Communist and Prison Organizer Ed Mead on the U.S. Prison Industrial System

1 Comment
09:25 UTC


Nasrallah warns that Cyprus will be a target if it lets Israel use its territory in conflict against Lebanon


My opinion and the line I will be pushing in upcoming gatherings is the following:

  1. Cyprus, as it stands, is complicit in Zionist terrorism, war crimes, and genocide. Anything that happens is our government's fault and the fault of anyone who supports its disgusting pro-Zionist policies.
  2. If we suddenly face consequences for our complicity, the warmongers and Zionist lovers, and all their western allies, will go into a hysteria, probably calling for Cyprus to join NATO and maybe even to more directly join in on the genocide against the Palestinian people or a war against Lebanon.
  3. In this case anyone who loves peace and hates imperialist war must call for Cyprus to a. not respond to any strikes in a retaliatory or escalatory manner, b. end its complicity in u.$. / NATO and Zionist wars and crimes in the region. The latter means permanently expelling the IDF out of Cyprus and cutting all collaborative ties with it, and opposing any further use of the island by the NATO imperialist countries (u.$, Britain, France) to help the Zionist entity or to conduct their own operations, maybe even closing down all British and other NATO facilities on the island in general (an optimal outcome in my mind, let's say a maximum demand). Edit: point A should also directly apply to the EU, meaning there must be a call for the EU to not respond "on behalf" of Cyprus by invoking the mutual defense clause in a retaliatory or escalatory manner.
  4. Perhaps a broader anti-imperialist, anti-war movement could be rallied around the above understandings and demands. This thought would need much more elaboration.
22:08 UTC


Labour aristocracy in a country like India

I have learnt a lot from the discussions that take place in this subreddit, particularly about the labour aristocracy in the imperialist core, the petit bourgeois, its class interests and its relationship with fascism.

I want to learn more about the LA in a country like India. Who historically constitutes a privileged section of the proletariat in a country that can be classified as having a semi-feudal and semi-colonial character? How big is it today, how does its reactionary position develop and how does it reproduce itself? What role do social relations and structures such as caste and the current state of communalism under Brahminical Hindutva fascism have to play in this?

If someone can point me towards any readings on the same, I would greatly appreciate it. Of course, links to previous discussions on this subreddit are great too.

07:21 UTC


Stalin and Comintern

I recently made a post on the internationals, and I have found a text from George Novack and Jacob Zumoff. Novack's is a broader history of all three, but the issue I find is that it is quite Trotskyist. Half of what it analyzes from the Comintern is that there was insufficient leadership from the organization due to Stalinist bureaucratization and socialism in one country. Similarly, in Zumoff's analysis, from just the introduction it seems he. is also coming after Stalinist policies for the downfall of the Comintern. I am far from a Stalinist, but I am extremely weary of anti-Stalinist sentiment, especially when coming from Trotskyist perspectives. This is not a claim that their analysis is wrong, but there is a part of it I do not trust. I might be wrong on this. Does anyone know the relationship between Stalin and the Comintern, or even Stalin on the national question, that does not purely bash it? Or at least texts that offer a fair assesment of it? Zumoff's text might be more fair than Novack's, but I have an instinctual distrust when everything bad about the Soviet Union is Stalin's fault. I have seen posts on here that are critical of Trotsykist PR critiques of socialism in one country as idealist, so I wonder if there are some people that know more about Stalinist international policy with the Comintern.

00:38 UTC


MIMprison’s critique of Maoist Communist Union (MCU) and Revolutionary Marxist Students (RMS) in the US

Since MIM prisons will no longer be active on reddit beginning in May, I’m posting their recent polemic because I found it relevant to the political line of the sub


For documents by the MCU, see http://www.bannedthought.net/USA/MCU/index.htm. In particular, they had a talk amongst themselves on their activities during George Floyd protests that might be of interest, seen here.

Here’s my summary of the main points. The polemic calls out the “Maoist” groups for being crypto-Trotskyists, fetishizing industrial US workers while not engaging with the question of the labor aristocracy and manifestations of settler-colonialism under the national question; the RMS has a faulty understanding of the Israeli “working class,” a problem to be extended to the US “working class”. Another critique is directed at the MCU’s attempt at applying tactics from 1900s Russia to United States today, failing to differentiate the conditions of the modern (settler) working class against the former.

The polemic itself aside, it’s disappointing that these organizations (MCU, RMS)do not make concrete analysis of modern phenomenas in the US—unique to US, or at least to settler-colonial entities—which could be attributable to their methods of abstraction, ultimately reflected their mechanical recycling of tactics from Lenin’s time. Are there currently any organization (or just small active groups) that even takes the labor aristocracy and settler-colonial analysis seriously in charting out their practice? Maybe MIM is not all correct and the tactics are still relevant but with the above “Maoist” groups, its deficient because there’s no coherent theory nor analysis of classes to accompany them.

E: the last sentence is poorly worded, as corrected by a comment.

22:11 UTC


Communist Initiative of Cyprus: "The Assessment of the CIC for the European Elections"

17:20 UTC


2 of the 3 superpowers after ww2 are led by a communist parities

I've been thinking about the historical superpowers: the USSR, PRC, and USA. Two out of these three were led by communist parties, even though there are far fewer communist-led countries compared to non-communist ones. Does this indicates that being led by a communist party increases a country's chances of becoming a superpower? Where might my logic be flawed?

13:04 UTC

Back To Top