So I play a lot Yugioh and some other card games, but the thought popped into my head “what changes would be made to this game under socialism?”

Obviously the whole idea of booster packs is problematic because it’s basically gambling. A lot of players don’t even buy sealed packs much and instead buy single cards. So I’m thinking maybe you’d have more things like the speed duel boxes where you know exactly what cards you’re getting from it.

Also I have heard the game is way more affordable in Japan, because each card is printed in multiple rarities there. So the collectors can hunt for the rare versions if they want, but if someone just wants any version of the card to play the game they can get it cheap. Would stop things like £200 WANTED/Bonfire from happening.

As the title suggests, does anyone have any good book recommendations to learn about open borders?

Hello people. So basically source of profit is worker’s labour. I do understand the process and I agree; but I’ve checked a couple Marxist book I have and all of them basically says “Source can’t be capitalist’s success because overall their profit will be someone else’s loss and market would neutralise itself” with no examples or deeper explanation. Could you elaborate it further? Thank you.

One capitalist knows business well and he sells, let’s say, an apple for $10, meanwhile average market price is $5. Why the extra $5 is not capitalist’s success? That’s what I am questioning.

People often say things like "I'm being productive." or "This isn't productive." even in everyday life outside of business, and American media has been obsessed with "productivity" in the past. "How to increase your productivity", "Corporations lost x amount of money in productivity from workers getting sick", etc.

Hello! Trans guy here.

As somebody who's from Germany, it is incredibly challenging to find reading material or even articles illustrating the darker sides of the EU.

I figured I'd ask here whether anyone had any good introductory recommendations I could get my hands on?

I am looking for books on Soviet history, from a Marxist perspective that are neither overly apologetic (Grover furr) nor straight anti-communist propaganda. Are there any books that analyze the USSR success and failures without being overly dogmatic?

It is first laid out, in the question of the relation between Nation and proletarian class struggle that:

The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.
National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.
The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.
In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.

Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels | Manifesto of the Communist Party | Chapter II: Proletarians and Communists | 1848

Yet, when confronted with Lassale's interpretation of such proposition, Marx, in his critique of the draft programme to be adopted by the United Worker's Party of Germany, completes:

"The working class strives for its emancipation first of all within the framework of the present-day

national states, conscious that the necessary result of its efforts, which are common to the workers of all civilized countries, will be the international brotherhood of peoples." Lassalle, in opposition to the Communist Manifesto and to all earlier socialism, conceived the workers' movement from the narrowest national standpoint. He is being followed in this -- and that after the work of the International!
It is altogether self-evident that, to be able to fight at all, the working class must organize itself at home as a class and that its own country is the immediate arena of its struggle -- insofar as its class struggle is national, not in substance, but, as the Communist Manifesto says, "in form". But the "framework of the present-day national state", for instance, the German Empire, is itself, in its turn, economically "within the framework" of the world market, politically "within the framework" of the system of states.

Karl Marx | Critique of the Gotha Programme | Section I, 5. | 1875

In which he lays out that the struggle of the working class is "national, not in substance, but, as the Communist Manifesto says, "in form".".

I am struggling to understand such difference.

My first interpretation is that, given one section of the proletariat, this section's first area of class struggle ought to be still within its national borders, [IN FORM:] as to settle matters with its own bourgeoisie, and constitute itself as the ruling class within these said national borders. Said proccess would be by virtue of the structure of modern capitalist nation-states, areas of defined institutional borders and authority. Yet, [IN SUBSTANCE:] the struggle of the proletariat, as an international class ,whose economical relations in globalized capitalism transcend those of the Nation framework, must be waged internationally, not as a "dispute for each nation's liberation", but as a joint effort of the Proletariat as class.

Firstly, how is my interpretation incorrect, if it is so? Secondly, does Marx ever clarify or further explain either one of those passages, or this concept? If so, it would be of great help for developing my understanding.

Strong believer in Marxism Theory, however, I used to lurk on some of the “tankie” subs who would totally contradict themselves and become insufferable.

They would always preach how modern china is a socialist utopia with its recent economic growth in the last 30 years and how they’ve lifted millions out of poverty.

Yes, I certainly agree that they have lifted millions out of poverty. However, having previously lived in China and worked with a lot of Chinese, the utopia facade entirely falls apart. Most people are worked absolutely to the bone (12-16hr), no paid overtime, corporations and upper managers exploiting the workers (was personally threatened to be fired if I didn’t do unpaid overtime as they could easily replace me), terrible healthcare system (wife’s grandparents couldn’t seek treatment for emergency until AFTER they pay, not so free afterall), exhorbint rent prices and landlords owning most of the propety, and the list goes on.

To my understanding Marxism is built on building a classless, workers society, but China certainly does not reflect this. A lot of these Tankies that preach China have certainly never worked/lived there, and totally contradict themselves which is quite frustrating.

Curious what your guys opinions of China is (non politically)? I personally think they need another workers revolution.

I've been born in a mixed conservative household (my grandparent is a natsoc, my grandma is a supporter of Salazar and Franco, my mother is a conservative liberal). I have many leftist friends, but due to my dislike of modern day progressivism, I never got much interest in learning more about Marxist ideals.

As I change my thoughts on race towards more tolerant and positive ideas and in a route to accept my own homosexuality, I ask upon you, knowing now my background, what do you suggest me to read/see to better understand your viewpoint?

I write this question with an open heart and mind.

I am not a socialist, but I do want to learn. And I come in good faith.

If you guys could help me understand the rate of profit concept and why it falls, I would be appreciative

Like, how would teams be organized, and players be selected, and how would it be the relationship between a socialist country's soccer team, and soccer tournaments like the World Cup, or Champions League?

I know neoliberal capitalism leads to big unequity, there is more GDP, because capitalists steal more from workers, while lower class people are becoming even more poor, basically US.

His type of neoliberalism is even more deregulated and will probably lead to chaos and more inflation/deflation. But what if... His policies will somehow work, for example by making other policies than he wanted, I heard he wants economy like in Ireland, which is not leizefaire, but then still public opinion will say that right-wing "libertarianism" works and is good for freedom and economy?

The NEP was, as Lenin described it, a backsliding into capitalism for the purpose of revitalising the market, but to what extent was this policy an abandonment of communism? How did the party and members within react?

Firstly, I will say I have read enough to understand that the the "Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis" stuff is nonsense peddled by Fichte, and isn't really relevant to Marxist studies (or even Hegel for that matter).

However, when I've discussed this very thing in various circles online, as an outspoken ML, there are some attitudes I've noticed that seem to indicate many "left coms" hold very different views and interpretations of dialectics and therefore dialectical materialism in comparison to MLs, and I'm very curious as to what this disagreement is?

Especially, what part of dialectics do they believe that MLs such as Stalin and Mao are misunderstanding or misconstruing? How does this tie into Marx and Hegel's proposition of the dialectic (idealism and materialism being the only obvious one with Hegel). I've been searching a bit lately and haven't been able to find anything incredibly solid in the literature, so I thought I would consult here.

Thanks!

Hello everyone! I would consider myself a Marxist and that is what I generally brand myself as. However, due to the gigantic amount of factionalism between socialists and communists, I do not exactly know with certainty where I stand when it comes to the question of praxis. On one hand, I can see merit in the arguments against state-socialism, uprising of the masses, and for the benefits of workers' councils. Although, on the other hand, I can see the merit in the establishment of vanguard organizations in order to protect the revolution and centralize communist goals.

I intend to purchase a few works of Lenin and Luxembourg when I get the opportunity to, I just wanted to hear some counter-arguments for both sides, and where this community stands on this issue. Thanks!

It's a term I hear quite a bit but dont particularly understand, could someone fill me in on what the problem is and what propsed solutions are.

Thanks

I’m doing an essay at school about women’s rights in Russia during Lenin’s rule, and since I need to find two sources which have different perspectives on this subject, I wanted to find something written by a communist woman contemporary to that time. But I struggled a bit to find writing that was specifically about the revolution and its effects. So I figured you guys might know of something useful.

Thank you very much to anyone who decides to respond, I really appreciate it! And I also think it’s important to remember these women and their contributions to society, since women unfortunately tend to be erased from history.

And who will do what during revolution, war (if one occurs in the imperial core), and fascism with the mask of? How will targeted people survive in one piece?

He has been popping up in my algorithm lately, and I'm just not familiar with him at all. I like to listen to videos or podcasts and his long-form videos are calling my name. In your opinion, is he a good resource (among many others) for learning theory?

So while I was reading what Marx had written about the liberal-centrist July Monarchy (1830-1848), I came across this passage from his essay The English Revolution that startled me:

M. Guizot has applied the most banal platitudes of French parliamentary debate to English history, believing he has thereby explained it. Similarly, when he was Minister, M. Guizot imagined he was balancing on his shoulders the pole of equilibrium between Parliament and the Crown, whereas in reality he was only jobbing the whole of the French State and the whole of French society bit by bit to the Jewish financiers of the Paris Bourse.

I thought maybe he was just having a heated gamer moment here, but with the way he described the July Monarchy in the opening of his Class Struggle in France though:

After the July Revolution, when the liberal banker Laffitte led his compère, the Duke of Orléans, in triumph to the Hôtel de Ville, he let fall the words: “From now on the bankers will rule”. Laffitte had betrayed the secret of the revolution.

It was not the French bourgeoisie that ruled under Louis Philippe, but one faction of it: bankers, stock-exchange kings, railway kings, owners of coal and iron mines and forests, a part of the landed proprietors associated with them – the so-called financial aristocracy. It sat on the throne, it dictated laws in the Chambers, it distributed public offices, from cabinet portfolios to tobacco bureau posts.

[...] the faction of the bourgeoisie that ruled and legislated through the Chambers had a direct interest in the indebtedness of the state. The state deficit was really the main object of its speculation and the chief source of its enrichment. At the end of each year a new deficit. After the lapse of four or five years a new loan. And every new loan offered new opportunities to the finance aristocracy for defrauding the state, which was kept artificially on the verge of bankruptcy – it had to negotiate with the bankers under the most unfavorable conditions.

[...] the smallest financial reform was wrecked through the influence of the bankers. For example, the postal reform. Rothschild protested. Was it permissible for the state to curtail sources of revenue out of which interest was to be paid on its ever increasing debt?

The July Monarchy was nothing other than a joint stock company for the exploitation of France's national wealth, whose dividends were divided among ministers, Chambers, 240,000 voters, and their adherents. Louis Philippe was the director of this company – Robert Macaire on the throne.

[...] the same prostitution, the same shameless cheating, the same mania to get rich was repeated in every sphere, from the court to the Café Borgne to get rich not by production, but by pocketing the already available wealth of others, clashing every moment with the bourgeois laws themselves, [...] lusts wherein wealth derived from gambling naturally seeks its satisfaction, where pleasure becomes crapuleux, where money, filth, and blood commingle. The finance aristocracy, in its mode of acquisition as well as in its pleasures, is nothing but the rebirth of the lumpenproletariat on the heights of bourgeois society.

...it makes it seems like to me he viewed the French constitutional monarchy the same way fascists, like the JQ posters on 4chan, view modern Western bourgeois states: a financial aristocracy that was subservient to the interests of the "financial Jewry". Am I missing some crucial context here?

So I understand all rent is wrong etc., but I do feel that it provides a benefit in the sense that you aren’t tied down to where you are for a long period of time. With renting it works if you move around a lot for work, or just don’t wanna settle down yet. Is there a system in socialism, or something that the soviets implemented, that was or is at least somewhat similar?

I've decided to read through Marx's Capital and I have a couple of questions that some of you more seasoned comrades might be able to answer for me. I'll try to provide direct quotes and page numbers wherever I can. Concerning these questions specifically, I had them after reading the first chapter of Penguin Classics' version of Volume One. Any help is appreciated, even if you just answer one or even part of one question.

Q1: On page 131, Marx is trying to provide more clarity concerning the boundaries of the definition of commodities. He goes on to state:

"A thing can be useful, and a product of human labour, without being a commodity. He who satisfies his own need with the product of his own labour admittedly creates use-values, but not commodities. In order to produce the latter, he must not only produce use-values, but use-values for others, social use-values. (And not merely for others. The medieval peasant produced a corn-rent for the feudal lord and a corn-tithe for the priest; but neither the corn-rent nor the corn-tithe became commodities simply by being produced for others. In order to become a commodity, the product must be transferred to the other person, for whom it serves as a use-value, through the medium of exchange.)"

I understand that there are differences in objects and commodities. For example, things can have use-value without value (as in without the basis of labor-power) — things like air, wood, water, etc. But then in the quote above, Marx explains that things can have both use and be the product of human labor without fitting the definition of a commodity. His example here is of a man who produces use-value for himself. I can follow the argument well enough that commodities must also have social use-value. Here is where I start to get confused. With the example of the medieval peasant, he produces corn for his lord which is the product of human labor, has use-value, and is social. However, it doesn't qualify because it doesn't pass through the medium of exchange. Is the crux of this definition that the relation between landowner and peasant is based on violent coercion and not public consent as in a bourgeoise market? Is the problem that the peasant is even more exploited than the average worker in Marx's time and today? Or is Marx referring to the act of exchange where both parties give up something but receive something with equal value? Is this just the basis for the principle of exchange-value, which is crucial to the concept of the commodity?

Q2: On page 150, Marx gives the following example:

"Weaving creates the value of linen through its general property of being human labour rather than in its concrete form as weaving, we contrast it with the concrete labour which produces the equivalent of the linen, namely tailoring. Tailoring is now seen as the tangible form of realization of abstract human labour."

I was confused by what abstract labor meant so I watched David Hervey's lecture (His reading of Chapter 1, Volume 1 of Capital) and he explained it like this — Human labor must be both concrete (consuming labor-time) and abstract (creating a representation of value). The labor process is therefore two-fold. It is the concrete creation of use-value but also the congealment of labor-time into value within the commodity. I thought I understood it better after listening to Harvey, but going back to this highlight I made, I just got even more confused. So would someone explain to me concrete and abstract labor, maybe even with an example either anecdotal or from Marx's writing, please?

Im writing a protest set in the 1989's during the Baltic way protest. Basically i'm struggling to find ways in how living in the USSR was a struggle. I'm basically protesting for freedom and democracy, however im struggling to find examples to why people living in the USSR wanted to protest in the first place. Any help would be appreaciated! :D If you would also be able to provide sources that would be awesome :)

Hiya!

This is a long post, apologies in advance if this is the wrong sub for this kind of post. I went thrugh the rules and I think I'm safe, though again, sorry mods if you go through this to end up deleting it, I do not wish to waste your time.

I'm writing this post amidst a months long consideration (and, realistically, crisis) on where I actually stand on the leftist spectrum. For some background I started getting into politics more or less because of my obsession with philosophy as a teenager. Was very into hegel, but noticed some of his work felt like it didn't align with his broader systematic project, specifically I had major gripes with how Hegel treated the state and politics in his Philosophy of right, alongside that his Philosophy of Religion to me seemed to hinge too much on the big 'if' of wether christianity could even be interpreted in the way he did without being outright heretical and also, as an atheist, I found it holds Jesus as too hard of a core tennent to even make sense. This isn't a postivist question of wether Jesus really was the son of god, but rather of wether God, and his actualization and return to self in Jesus were even needed at all for his philosophy. This was something that came to realize is pretty much irreconcileable with Hegel alone, which is where I was drawn towards Feuerbach and Marx, as they seemed to do away with pretty much all the issues i had with Hegel without outright denying his work any truth it may have. This then lead me to becoming fairly far left, philosophically speaking I see no issues with calling this the most reasonable path there is. As such I became more and more interested in the histories and further theory of the sort of wider leftist spectrum. I never truly engaged with any big online discourse or communities, I only ever used reddit to scour for more books for me to read. This whole turbo-online speech of "-isms" is still farily new to me. I guess you could call me a "tankie", if that entails a belief that up until the opening of the soviet archives much of soviet history wasn't entirely up to par and highly biased towards western ideology, I wouldn't consider myself an apologist of it however. The reason for my recent confusion lies in the fact that, after reading some highly detailed soviet biographies, I noticed a pattern of much of it playing out like some high-school drama. Kotkin has some great writing on the post-Lenin power struggle and how the different sides reacted and behaved towards one another. I cannot with good faith hold that this sort of vanguardism, where power is consolidated in such a way that a "power" struggle can even be a thing is the future which I wish to live in, and I don't see how it differs from bourgeois systems other than that it doesn't call itself bourgeois. I don't know where I stand on the sort of leftist sphere of politics. There's a good discussion to be had about the neccesity of labels and the sort of weird behavior of online lefty sectarianism, however this isn't what I mean. I'm strictly talking about the question of what happens the day after the revolution? How is society to be organized? Marx was hopelessly vague on this question, the amount of interpretations of how his work follows the fall of capital is definitely a clear indicator of this being an issue.

What ground do we even have to stand on, and what is to be done afterwards?

(Originally I posted this on Anarchism101, but I realized it might be more useful if I posted it here, as people here can possibly give a good response to vanguard socialism and the rest. The intent of this post is not to incite debate or criticize Marxism. I am a Marxist and am fairly uncritical of most of his writing, and I see communism as a valuable endgoal. I am not anti socialist, in general thus post does not critique socialism, but is moreso a question on how others understand vanguard socialism.)

As someone who used to be libertarian/pro-capitalism, I have found that I need more than just education. Some kind of support group, or group that shares this experience, would be amazing. There are still ideological sentiments that linger, a worldview to leave behind, and new values to adjust to. Sometimes it's hard to ask the questions I want to without it sounding like it's in bad faith, simply because I'm stuck in some old thinking. Sometimes it'd just be nice to meet with people who used to hold those ideas, so they'd understand.

I don't think it has to be socialist in nature, but any suggestions from people here would be appreciated. This might be a hard ask though if organizing is difficult enough as it is.

My girlfriend and I are Jewish and fairly new to socialism. We are looking to find some learning resources, books to read together, and maybe even YouTubers (video essay type stuff) that could help us learn more and connect the Jewish identity with the leftist worldview. Does anybody have suggestions?

War (civil war?), full blown fascism (fascism with the mask off), and revolution in the US occurring between then and now.