Apologies if this has been asked before.

Is it ever discussed in the literature that party members/leaders of class revolutions will likely be overcome with a desire to enrich themselves? Is corruption inevitable? Like when you leave a dog alone in a room with a cheeseburger?

Co-operatives under capitalism are compelled to adhere to market forces, but what makes co-operatives under socialism wrong? I've read Hoxha's critique of Yugoslavia, but would you say that Yugoslavia's failure is inherent to the bourgeois nature of co-operatives or just that they failed because Yugoslavia was bourgeois?

I understand that Lenin is critical of trade unionism because it focuses on the economic demands of workers rather than the establishment of communism itself. However, I am unsure how that relates to the relation of base and superstructure.

Here is the explanation from Wikipedia: "Economism, sometimes spelled economicism, is "the most orthodox [position in Marxism which] provides one-to-one correlations between the socio-economic base and the intellectual superstructure". Economism refers to the distraction of working-class political activism from a global political project to purely economic demands."

What is the relation between those elements? Could economism refer to either? Does Lenin believe that revolutionary communism is irreducible to economic conditions (contrary to Orthodox Marxism); hence, the need for communist revolutionaries?

From an ML perspective, what sets fascism apart from other overtly dictatorial capitalist regimes? Can all capitalist dictatorships be called fascist in some way, or is there a fundamental distinction to be made?

Some dictatorships seem more ideologically driven than others, for example: Chile under Pinochet, Peru under Fujimori, South Korea under Park Chung-hee, etc. as compared to Egypt under Sisi, Myanmar under its military junta, Cameroon under Paul Biya, etc. How should one categorize these? Is it useful to categorize them at all?

[W]e assert that a single revolutionary programme that emerges from a concrete analysis of a concrete situation on behalf of a dynamic movement is worth more than a thousand academic marxist books, regardless of the authors’ credentials, about communist hypotheses and horizons. If communism is a necessity, then we cannot accept abstract reclamations of communism that ignore the need to make it a reality. We need to demand the concrete, we need to focus on literature produced by movements that are active in class struggle and, due to this activity, have produced a theory that is itself generated by the necessities of struggle.

The Communist Necessity, J. Moufawad-Paul

What are some programmes of Communist Parties, either active or dormant, that ou think are particularly noteable in their coherence and their ideological outlook? I've been trying to study various movements from around the world, and I think it's interesting that for a movement where there is such a focus on being scientific in ones' analysis, that there isn't a standard programme for communist parties. Some are extremely short, and some are extremely long (like the (nuovo)PCI in Italy for example.)

I'm trying to focus my study on the CPP Programme, which I think is interestest because there is a distinction between the programme and it's *specific* programme in the near term future.

In contrast, are there any organisations that have programs that are particularly bad, that serve as a lesson for what not to do for other communist parties and organisations?

So according to marxist Leninism there needs to be a state in order to suppress the bourgeoisie, but if how can there still be a bourgeoisie after the workers have control over the means of production?

I'm very new to theory and have only recently started exploring the Manifesto, so apologies if this is a basic question.

I was reading Freud's "Civilization and Its Discontents" and stumbled on this passage where he criticizes what he thinks is communism's view of human nature:

The Communists believe they have found a way of delivering us from this evil. Man is whole-heartedly good and friendly to his neighbour, they say, but the system of private property has corrupted his nature. If private property were abolished, all valuables held in common and all allowed to share in the enjoyment of them, ill-will and enmity would disappear from among men. Since all needs would be satisfied, none would have any reason to regard another as an enemy; all would willingly undertake the work which is necessary.

Freud then argues this is psychologically naïve:

But I am able to recognize that psychologically it is founded on an untenable illusion... It in no way alters the individual differences in power and influence which are turned by aggressiveness to its own use, nor does it change the nature of the instinct in any way. This instinct did not arise as the result of property; it reigned almost supreme in primitive times when possessions were still extremely scanty...

What strikes me is that Freud seems to be attacking a straw man here. He portrays communism as claiming that abolishing private property would eliminate ALL human aggression and conflict. He then says these aggressive drives are apparently innate to human nature and predate capitalist social relations.

How would Marx respond? Did he really think that communist society would eliminate these aggressive drives in humans? Or is Freud mischaracterizing the communist position?

Also, to what degree can a systematic analysis of a gold-based economy be used to analyze a petroleum-based economy?

I can't differentiate these two concepts. Are they the same? Please help.

By early soviet Russia I mean something like from the start of the revolution till around WW2.

I was wondering if Lenin had any cohesive set of international principles (principles of diplomacy, international relations, views of self-determination of various peoples, etc - for example I think Lenin had ideas about (anti)-imperialism which he related to marxism, but I was wondering exactly what those were/where did he write about them and if other leading figures/delegates had differing views) that he tried to implement. If so, to what extent did early soviet Russia actually follow those principles. And to what extent those principles aligned with ideas of internationalism of countries such as the US and Woodrow Wilson's liberal internationalism which inspired the League of Nations which the USSR ultimately joined in 1934.

Past answers seem to just talk about how there's a debate between Trotsky and Stalin about socialism in one country or permanent internationalist revolution... I'm more so looking for quotes from Lenin's writings about internationalism (or even quotes from Trotsky/Stalin/etc) and see it contrasted with Liberal internationalism.

I was looking at Ecuador’s trade statistics and saw that 36.3%—more than 1/3—of all Ecuador’s crude petroleum is exported to Panama. 80.8% of Ecuador’s exports to Panama is in the form of crude petroleum and the surplus-value of the labor expended on its production.

Even more strangely, about 18% of Panama’s exports to Ecuador is in the form of refined petroleum, meaning essentially (from my understanding) that:

1. Ecuador exports crude petroleum to Panama;
2. Panama refines this crude petroleum; and
3. Panama sells this refined petroleum back to Ecuador.

What’s strange is that this is a relationship most commonly seen between an imperialist power and a semi-colony, but both Ecuador and Panama are semi-colonies in this instance.

Can someone explain why this happens? Is there an imperialist power benefitting from this extraction of surplus-value in the form of these commodities? Is this specific instance just an outlier?

Source for trade statistics.

Hello! This is a pretty strange concept to be asking about, I know. I don’t mean alienation in reference to feeling alienated from their own products or their own lives, but from the rest of society.

In my experience, on an individual level, proletarian communities will view white men as a threat. This doesn’t mean that people are necessarily hostile or even rude, but that there is a conscious barrier raised.

I usually see the barriers drop around the fifth or sixth interaction, occasionally faster.

I have an urge to try and make this into a “useful” question, and ask about how this can be applied to organizing or something, but I honestly am not super concerned. White people who are worth their salt already know the answer there.

I’m mostly just curious how other people think about this process on a sort of abstract level.

I had a conversation about this the other day, and realised I don't know enough on the subject.

Is there a book or article that explains, in specificity, how exactly capitalism creates these various symptoms that are then categorised as mental 'disorders'?

When I was having this conversation, the other person was convinced that mental illness would merely change form for the better, not eventually wither away, like the patriarchy or racism will.

I've seen in (mostly anti communist) articles that the collectivisation of agriculture in the Soviet Union being cited as the primary cause of the famine during the early 1930s. One thing I've never seen, however, is an explanation as to WHY collectivising agriculture and moving away from private ownership of agricultural land would necessarily result in, or make the possibility of famine, more likely. Perhaps I have a misunderstanding of collectivisation and how it was implemented in the USSR, I admit that I'm not the most well read on the subject specifically, but I fail to see how collectivisation itself caused the famine.

Recently I saw a video of Noam Chomsky in which he claimed that Marx himself had studied peasantry in his last years and his conclusions were effectively suppressed by urban intellectuals like the Social Democrats and the Bolsheviks as it did not fit in the narrative of Proletariats being the bulwark of the Revolution and against the nationalization of land. So I embarked on a quest to study agriculture from a Marxist point of view which is also very close to me as I come from a rural background. Please share books, articles etc on the topic

I’m looking for something very introductory, that can help me when my friends bombard me with anti-communist rhetoric and say that it’s stupid to support.

I constantly hear:

“Do you know how many people died under socialism?!”

“Every attempt at communism has failed miserably”

I just need some factual and easy-to-understand arguments against them.

Hey comrades!

I’m looking for Marxist-Leninist-Maoist organizations active in the U.S. I was previously a member of the CPUSA but left the party recently.

If anyone knows of any MLM orgs or has advice on where to start, I’d appreciate the insight.

Thanks in advance!

I can't find any information on this man outside of some basic news sites. I can't find any discussion or anything. My partner, who is not ML, watched a video with this guy on the FBI's most wanted list. I have no doubt that it being a list by the FBI, it's probably pretty shady, but I can't find much information on this man.

For context, I'm first nations Australian (indigenous), but I can easily tell that my wages are inflated, and I receive some other special benefits from Australia being a social democracy.

But I also think this is not the case for most indigenous people here. A very significant portion of First Nations people still live under 'primitive' communism but suffer the setbacks of capitalism. For example, lack of access to water, due to climate change.

Another thing to note is that, per capita, we are globally the most imprisoned demographic.

Of course, there are members of the bourgeois, labour aristocracy, etc. among every demographic, but what do you think this means for the revolutionary potential of those exploiters within oppressed minorities?

It has been a few days since the Syrian opposition has launched a new offensive against the central goverment. Since then there has been increasing Russian and American interference withing Syria.

But what intrests me is Iran is quite hesitant to increase military presence in syria and both Hezbollah and the PMU have declared that they will not deploy their troops on syrian soil and the HTS rebels are funded by Turkey and Turkey is trying to weaken the SDF which are backed by the U$.

My question is how is the contradiction between the Turkish bourgeoisie and Nato is going to play out? Also is it possible that Iran is trying to compromise with the west?

This question almost certainly doesn't have a specific broad answer, but is there at least a study on how individuals like Mao or Engels became revolutionary in their thinking/actions, in their specific context?

I know it might be a reference to HOI4 - The New Order, but upon researching the real Valery Sablin, as an MLM, I mostly have a positive position on him. He is very much an anti-revisionist who saw the consequences of revisionism in the USSR, thus he mutinied and was executed by the Revisionist Brezhnev government. I have seen however statements that he was more of a Leninist than a Marxist-Leninist, but just correct me on that. I do not really believe in great men of history, but idk I just like him. What is your view on his actions, or was he a CIA agent or something?

Can someone recommend any intro reading to dialectics? Thanks :)

I don't mean to bash the party as much as much as offer a critique and broach questions.

First, CPUSA has been talking a lot lately of running local candidates for office. However, I haven't heard much in the way of building ties with the labor movement in the US. History shows us that the CPUSA was strongest when they had a strong presence in the labor movement. And Lenin's 'What Is To Be Done?' and 'Left Wing Infantilism,' along with Stalin's 'Briefly On Our Disagreements,' all place heavy emphasis on strong ties between the working class movement and socialist movement. In fact, Stalin likened socialism without connections to the working class movement as 'a compass without a ship.' Why isn't CPUSA discussing how to build a presence in the trade union movement. I have been a shop steward for a few years. And I was voted in as a shop steward by people who did not share my Marxist-Leninist worldview. Our class consciousness gives us a unique advantage to lead the struggle on the shop floor. CPUSA's own involvement in the Amazon unionization only backs this up. Why not build where we can be successful?

Also, why is PW so timid when it comes to criticizing not only Democrats, but mediocre union leaders. DSA and Labor Notes played a huge role in promoting Shawn Fain. In the meantime, CPUSA has been uncritical of bad union leaders like Randi Weingarten, Becky Pringle, and others.

I do understand the reluctance of the CPUSA to break with the Democrats. However, the CPUSA hasn't really had a serious discussion on how to make a strong national party with a solid enough base to build power. Not that any other socialist group has made any real attempts at winning political power either--I would hardly call PSL's presidential bid an attempt at building people power because PSL doesn't have a strong enough base with the working class movement to do anything but gain a few thousand votes.

Where do Marxist-Leninists in the US on this forum see the future of the socialist political movement? How can we encourage the current socialist groups in the US to build strong ties with the working class and lead a working class movement? Because if we don't have the working class movement, we'll either be stuck as CPUSA is in backing Democrats or as PSL is in running ineffective political campaigns. And how do we modernize William Z. Foster's, Lenin's, Eugene Debs's, and other theorists who wrote on organizing so that we can organize in the twenty first century?

Is it mainly their position in Relations of Production? Or their Societal Standing, Profession and Material Wealth also have an effect?

E.g. Do developer in third world count as petite bourgeoisie? How about Office Worker or someone who work in administrative position?

Sorry for the grammar, as I'm from Indonesia English is not my first language.

I've had this discussion with a person saying that his reforms were top-down meaning he never aimed to abolish the national bourgeoisie therefore it made him a bourgeois leader, claiming he never addressed abolishing money or the bourgeoisie or surplus value. Is this a common way of looking at the image of Sankara?

So it's my understanding that after global capitalism is replaced by global socialism, the state may wither away as people reach a level of collaboration that would render the state redundant. It seems like this would only occur if the conditions are absolutely right, with plenty of resources to go around and practically no tribalist/reactionary tendencies among the people - but what if that were to change? What if communism won't be the 'end of history' as it's sometimes implied, but a fleeting state of certain societies not needing a state to cooperate? E.g. natural disaster may lead to a lack of resources in a certain area which may lead its people to steal resources from a smaller/weaker people group, leading that smaller people group to create a state as a tool of defense, with a strong border, military etc?

After the disappointing end of kites-journal.org, I'm wondering if any comrades know of any journals that are worth watching? I'm coming at things from a MLM perspective, but I'm wondering if there are any anti-revisionist english language journals, magazines, or websites at all that are updates regularly enough that are worth reading. I'd also be interested in knowing if there are any communist news sites that one should be aware of too.