Hey, taking my first steps to really understand Marxism and I'm stumbling at the first paragraph of The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism.

In one way or another, all official and liberal science defends wage-slavery.

Does Lenin mean something different by "science" than what is colloquially understood today? What is the distinction between official and liberal in this regard?

Edit: or am I jumping the gun and should just finish reading it before asking questions?

Thanks in advance

I had a conversation with a left-com that had the following critiques;

1. Stalin appealed to the aristocracy of the Russian empire, and formed a cadre of Russian chauvinists that dominated the other SRs and destroyed their 'culture'

2. Stalin spearheaded a state-capitalist country.

I have no idea about the former, the latter sounds like 'the presence of commodity production is evident of capitalism- and the USSR had it'.

I don't really care for debating them, but I hadn't heard of the first critique before.

As Marxists, we must emphatically combat all production of drugs and mercilessly trample over all distributors of opiates, alcohol, marijuana, etc. This much, I understand. As Lenin himself said, death is preferable to selling vodka (and also other drugs). However, I don't understand what the imperialist bourgeoisie stand to gain by illegalizing drugs. Wouldn't they stand to make much more profit (as the accumulation of profit is their primary goal) if pharmaceutical companies dealt out these illegal drugs? Wouldn't they stand to only further benefit by dulling the minds of the populace and furthering the labour-aristocracy into a pit of complacency and dull acquiescence?

I understand that the illegalization of drugs such as cocaine and marijuana primarily stand to fill prisons with swarms of marginalized, oppressed communities like Black and Latino people, but then when I look to the prohibition era, I'm not exactly sure what the purpose was (it wasn't as if the CIA trafficked alcohol specifically into black communities like with Contra cocaine trafficking). To be honest, I don't really understand the bourgeoisie's intentions or motivations for the prohibition era, and as I'm not American, I don't know much of the context. So why have they stood against drugs, and still continue to? Is it only to stuff more people into these prisons for what I can only describe as bonded labour, or is there some other gain hidden there too?

Since the American bourgeoisie seem to have no problem with making their labour-aristocratic and petit-bourgeois population addicted to alcohol, antidepressants, benzodiazepines, and various pharmaceutical opiates, why exactly would they have an issue with making them addicted to marijuana, heroin, meth, etc? Is it because these drugs are harmful to the imperial base and are better used (to the aims of the imperialists) in imperialized, semi-feudal countries? It seems to be confusing trying to figure out the "why" when it comes to western imperialist powers taking such measures to illegalize certain drugs but not others. I'm just trying to make sense of their motivations and interests.

i am starting Jameson’s Postmodernism: Or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, and I find myself a bit confused upon reading the following characterization of “Late Capitalism”:

What marks the development of the new concept over the older one (which was still roughly consistent with Lenin’s notion of a “monopoly stage” of capitalism) is not merely an emphasis on the emergence of new forms of business organization (multinationals, transnationals) beyond the monopoly stage but, above all, the vision of a world

capitalist system fundamentally distinct from the older imperialism, which was little more than a rivalry between the various colonial powers.

…

Besides the forms of transnational business

mentioned above, its features include the new international division of labor, a vertiginous new dynamic in international banking and the stock exchanges (including the enormous Second and Third World debt), new forms of media interrelationship (very much including transportation systems such as containerization), computers and automation, the flight of production to advanced Third World areas, along with all the more familiar social consequences, including the crisis of traditional labor, the emergence of yuppies, and gentrification on a now-global scale.

are transnational/multi-national corporations really beyond the monopoly stage? i had thought that imperialist economies were still characteristic of monopolistic competition.

Jameson does emphasize the continuity of this “late capitalism” with imperialism, but still defines the former as a “third stage”. does this go against Lenin’s description of imperialism as not only the “highest stage of capitalism”, but also as “moribund capitalism, capitalism in transition to socialism”?

Looking for leftist strategies for social change

Hello comrades.

As the point of all our political work and struggle is revolution or at least some degree of social change, I started reading about strategies and tactics for revolution and social change. And now I need your help to know what to read because of course by far not all leftist literature and theory is on these topics. I'm currently starting with Eric Olin Wright and Gramsci and I know that Lenin, Mao and Gene Sharp wrote extensively on these topics.

But there surely are many more, so feel free to list as many fitting authors and books as you want. If you have the time, a short explanation in what ways the author or book addresses the topics would be great but I'm also fine with names only ;)

i read the origins of the family private property and the state a while ago and i could've sworn there was a passage about ancient Egyptian society developing physics and maths as a result of the upper classes relying on slaves to do all the labour but when looking for it i couldn't find it so am i just imagining that passage or is it in there if so can you point me in the right direction

Are there any Marxist works on the validity (or lack thereof) of the concept of false consciousness? Related, how does fascism play into the false consciousness vs real consciousness discussion?

Edit: I know false consciousness to be untrue (that it is untrue is self-evident when you acknowledge settlers, the petty-bourgeois theory in regards to Amerikan 'working class' etc.), I'm more so asking for a work that conveys that because I am not capable of picking apart the thought process and fully understanding it on my own.

This question may not be specific to Marxism, but I feel like this place would be able to provide valuable answers. Online in Marxist circles I heard that ISIS is a western creation. I don't know much about ISIS yet it's very talked about, can someone provide an explanation? How was ISIS created? What is ISIS even? What do they do?

I'm not trying to be provocative, it's a genuine interest.

North Korea, reportedly, was supplying Russia with shells and ballistic missiles for a long period of time. Now, reportedly, DPKR soldiers joined Russian soldiers and are attacking Ukrainian troops. While I do believe that all of this is true, I am adding 'reportedly', because I know there are people among communists and socialists believing these are fake news to demonize DKPR.

But I also know there are people here who consider this war as imperialistic by both sides, and it is interesting to know what their views are going through now or in the last years, if they don't mind sharing them.

I've just finished reading Stalin's "Marxism and Problems of Linguistics" and I think that comrade Stalin might have reached Idealist conclusion,which may be the reason why the french psychoanalyst Lacan refrences him on several occasions. What I want to ask is to know if: 1-Is my understanding of the issue correct? 2-If it is then how did stalin reach such conclusion?

(edit: after talking about it and researching, I have now know the difference)

As a US citizen I am confused whats the differences between the Communist Party USA and the American Communist Party? I know the CPUSA is considered revisionist and the ACP is considered 'MAGA communist' so I've been wondering what are their differences? I'm sorry for the confusion, I'm new to class consciousness and Marxism. I dont intend on creating division, I'm just a bit confused.

Love inside the Party is said to be free, free from economic considerations, religious judgment, and pressure from society to offer oneself to his/her beloved. This is because two activists or cadres who love each other should still offer themselves and their relationship to the struggle, to the revolution. For Ka Salud, marriage under the Party is important. Supposedly, this is the movement’s alternative to the backward, reactionary, and anti-women perspective in our society. Institutions are built to establish order in a society. The same applies to the Party. The marriage institution is meant to preserve the order in the Party. The CPP implements monogamy too, primarily to protect women, and to oppose the bourgeois perspective that somehow condones men’s infidelity. Generally, marriage under the Party is not viewed absolutely, that it is something that won’t change.

I recently read this text regarding marriage in the CPP. I understand (or misunderstand, not sure) this as non-monogamy is a consequence of men's power over women, therefore we must oppose non-monogamy in an effort to fight that power, and the bourgeois notion that non-monogamy is acceptable which comes from it.

My question then, is monogamy the presupposed natural state of humanity, or if men's power over women ceases to be (and gradually, gender itself), will non-monogamy not only become acceptable, but the norm? I guess part of my premise is faulty, in that there is no 'natural state' of humanity, but I mean to say will monogamy continue to exist regardless.

E: I haven't read the entire text by the way, just relevant parts.

If the existence of the proletariat as a class depends on the existence of private property as its antithesis, and the abolition of private property entails the destruction of both the proletariat itself and the burgeoisie, does this mean that a transitional socialist state where private property has been abolished is NOT a dictatorship of the proletariat?

The notion of celebrating neurodivergence, and genetic diversity in general, seems to be a newer one to develop. Did ML thought have a relatively unified response to the eugenics movement and the slow recognition of the validity of genetic diversity, or did different states approach the science and morality of such a question differently?

I understand completely that China's business relationships in Africa are vastly more beneficial and equal compared to imperialist nations like the US and the EU countries, however when I bring up criticisms in regards to China cooperating with national compradors in Africa and profiting off of the same exploitative working conditions (DRC for example), I'm told by other communists that this is necessary because overall China's influence in Africa will help develop "productive forces" and that economic growth is necessary to develop socialism. I thought communism could only be achieved via the masses, regardless of the level of technology of that society, as shown in Tsarist Russia and China which were far less advanced than other nations during their respective times. Is this no longer the case due to the different material conditions in the 21st century and specifically Africa? I am still learning Marxism and historical/dialectical materialism so I would truly appreciate any help on this matter. Thanks!

Are the majority of Americans petit-bourgeois? Or do they not know what they voted for?

I believe I've heard this somewhere but can't find it.

E: thank you for all your help, the works cited have been very useful.

Where do I start? My journey was such a long one and it was based off so much luck, I'm surprised I ever made it here ideologically. I don't want to leave it up to chance with him, are there any resources or things that can help with this?

Title!

How would a socialist America go about properly educating, informing, and judging the actions of so many people who's lifestyles would suddenly be considered petty bourgeoisie? For example, I'm a line cook at a small crab restaurant that employs just myself and two other people and is owned by a family. They also manage a hotel room at a resort that generates them passive income. By strict socialist standards, not only are they petty bourgeoise for owning the means of production that is our restaurant and the property they generate passivee income from, but the very concept of a private cook is petty mc.boogigoog.

Based on the way that public education raises us, we assume that communists just take power and immediately take everyone that they don't like and round them up and do god knows what.
What would a massive seizure of the means of production from small business owners, a dekulakization of America, actually look like in practice, in a way that assures the masses that they're in good authority?

To me, they would seem to be incompatible?

I'm new to Communism, and have only scratched the surface of it. It would really help if you could help me to understand how to actively participate in Communism. I know a few of the absolute basics, but other than that, not much.

I've read the Communist Manifesto, but apart from that I'm still uneducated. I'm trying to learn how to get active in the Worldwide Communist Community and how to educate myself in Communism. I would really appreciate it if you could help me in these endeavours, as then I can enter the world as a fully fledged Communist.

I'm based in the North East of England, and still am in within an educational environment. I'm looking for parties/Organisations to join, or ways to properly enter the Communist community, as well as ways to learn and grow my understanding of the ideology - rather than talk to myself in my house.

Basically the title and furthermore: Why is this the case? All Neo-marxists or neo-marxist movements I read about stand in contrast to Marxs theory. They sound like liberal opportunists most of the time. Is there any explanation for that or is my conclusion just wrong from the beginning?

They have said they have distanced themselves from Maoism and Gonzalo Thought and embraced Xi Jinping Thought, whatever that is. He actually wrote a book on it but I've never read it, so pardon my ignorance. But Wikipedia for example still lists them as being Marxist-Leninist-Maoist.

But anyway, by those standards, wouldn't a switch to Xi Jinping be considered Revisionist Communism?

I’ve just been getting into communist literature and find myself re-reading sentences many times just to understand it. I’ve pretty much only ready fictional novels in the past and the writing style of these educational writers seems like quite a step up for me. Apologies if this isn’t an appropriate question I was just wanting to know if this is a typical struggle most people go through or if I’m just a bit brain dead. Nonetheless I’ll soldier on

After reading the preface to Althusser’s Reading Capital, one of the concepts I had the most trouble understanding what the notion of theoretical practice.

Aren’t theory and practice two poles of a dialectic? When Althusser brings them together, is the idea to further split theory into two, and assign primacy to some practical aspect?

It would be great if anyone could help me understand how these two things come together and if Althusser is claiming theory is practice or if this is a specific thing.

I have seen this word used quite a lot in the past few weeks, but it's just never matched the description you find in a dictionary. I'm not a native English speaker, so if anyone would explain this word and its usage to me, I'd very much appreciate it.

I'm currently looking for a party/organization to join to further my theoretical development. I'm a Marxist Lenist (dabble in Maoism). Years ago I was involved with the PCUSA, but I'm not sure about the state of the party in recent years. Would appreciate anyone I can connect with and to be pointed in the right direction.

Title. Im looking for reading material that goes in depth into how an actual milita or fighting would go down or operate. Almost like an Anarchist Cookbook but for Commies. I want to learn more about HYPOTHETICALLY would need to be done to be effective or what I myself would need to do to be effective for personal and communal defense

When I first started learning about Marxism, I understood the concept of the proletariat and the concept of the working class to be synonyms, as in having the same, identical meaning. Of course, many people use them interchangeably, and in fact there is a frustrating tendency among younger people, (myself a few years ago) to advocate dropping the use of the term "proletariat" entirely, since "working class" came across as more accessible language.

I've been studying about the terminology used in class analysis, since I have been focusing a lot on my education on the concept of social investigation. I've returned to an essay I read years ago called Class Analysis and Class Structure in Canada. In this piece is the following extract that I think flew over my head the first time I read it.

We propose theorizing the labour aristocracy as a section of the petty-bourgeoisie and distinct from the worker elite. The role of the labour aristocracy, which includes the leadership structure within and functionaries of unions, the NDP, and the various institutions they control, is to negotiate the worker elite’s inclusion into imperialist society, while containing, controlling and diverting proletarian struggles from developing into in a revolutionary direction. There is a growing contradiction between what we are calling the labour aristocracy and the worker elite, based on the inability of the labour aristocracy to renegotiate even the status quo – let alone make gains – for the worker elite. We believe that it is dangerous and politically juvenile to not distinguish between those workers who receive back a large portion of their surplus value by virtue of living within imperialist society and being situated in the upper stratum of an imperialist center’s working class – what we call the worker elite – versus the officialdom and functionaries of social democracy within the bourgeosified “labour movement” and the New Democratic Party.

In my own words, the Labour Aristocracy is the fraction of the bourgiousie, who's role is to ensure that the worker elite has a stake in the capitalist-imperialist system, and is not persuaded by revolutionary movements to become partisans of a communist movement.

Examples include as was mentioned, yellow union officials, staff of NGOs, leftist politicians, (NDP in Canada, Berniecrats in the US, Greens/Corbynists in the UK, ext) Could motivational speakers, who go to colleges and schools to talk to young proletarians about the need to go into debt for their education also be consider this type of labour aristocrat? Or people who run anti-racist training for large corporations, Grifters as kites could call them. Or am I extrapolating too much?

How common is this understanding of the distinction between the labour aristocracy/worker elite, and by extention the distinction between the proletariat and the working class?

Are there any potential shortcomings to this analysis? Is it too rigid and could push one into a dogmatic mindset?

Are there any longer articles or books on this subject? Could people suggest any other examples of class analysis being done, that takes into account the questions and concepts addressed in this post?