[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / ausneets / fur / mde / o / tacos / vg / vichan ]

/marx/ - Marxism

It makes you smart

Catalog   Archive

Winner of the 59rd Attention-Hungry Games
/blog/ - Tell us about your day

October 2018 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Verification *
File *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

File: 1428936027574.jpg (235.44 KB, 951x659, 951:659, enver_hoxha_republic_decla….jpg)


Hello, I am the new leader of /marx/.

I will continue the status quo: this board is for those who identify as Marxist-Leninist in some form, whether they uphold or otherwise identify with the Stalin-era USSR, the post-Stalin era, China under Mao, Albania under Hoxha, Cuba, the DPRK or whatever. Non-MLs are allowed to ask questions and the like.

I have a forum with a political forum area for registered users (although the forum itself is for forum games users think up and run.) If you want to get in private contact with me via PM, or if you just want to use the political forum area for whatever, feel free: http://eregime.org/index.php?act=idx

83 posts and 34 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
Post last edited at


File: ba3a2a0ee303f84⋯.png (882.68 KB, 1000x2264, 125:283, A425CBFD-C53E-465E-88E2-EE….png)


This infograph gives the basic gist. I’m not sure if this is just drama over a small change or if it will actually be bad (or when this will even occur)

File: 361ea4d25726d0c⋯.jpg (321.56 KB, 493x622, 493:622, Enver and Nexhmije Hoxha i….jpg)


Ask questions about Albania and/or Enver Hoxha here.

201 posts and 78 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



Just realised this was the wrong thread. Apologies.



Was Ramiz Alia a Oppurtunist and Counter-Rev (Supported the Liberalization of society and joined the "Socialist" Social-Democrat party the PLA devolved into) Or was he basically just someone caught in a Lost cause of a Situation?



Supporting the "liberalization of society" (especially one as closed as Albania's was, where jazz was denounced as "degenerate") isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Albania had no possibility of maintaining its socialist system with the overthrow of socialism elsewhere in Eastern Europe. He clearly did try to resist attempts at capitalist restoration in 1989 and through much of 1990, e.g. he sought to restore relations with the USSR, praised the GDR and Cuba, reaffirmed constantly that Albania would not give up socialism and would resist dictates from foreign countries, and so on.

However, Alia did basically become a social-democrat after 1990, which he should be criticized for. In that sense he can be accused of opportunism by trying to paint himself as a guy who brought bourgeois "democracy" to Albania, even though he clearly would have continued the existing system had socialism remained elsewhere in Europe.


1. What can we learn from Albania's attempt?

2. You wrote that all socialist economies suffered from such things as chronic shortages and failing to meet quotas, why does this happen? Is it inherent to a socialist economy per default?

File: bec269498242591⋯.jpg (64.04 KB, 447x601, 447:601, 1460131773459-1.jpg)


Questions about China today and in the past

21 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.



thoughts on Cockshott's video about China??


Can you recommend me something good about:

1. How the Chinese Red army fought Japan during WWII

2. The Chinese civil war



When it comes to the civil war, there's Edgar Snow's classic "Red Star Over China" for the period from the 1920s to the mid-30s.

For the period from about 1945 till liberation in 1949, Jack Belden's "China Shakes the World" is considered a great read: http://b-ok.cc/book/3387173/46d4c5


Do you think that Mao's "Cultural Revolution" Could Constitute a Breach of Leninist Democracy as Mao / the Gand of Four used the Red Guards and other elements to take out back and shoot (Sometimes Literally) members of the party that disagreed with Mao's Policies?

That and the fact that the Red Guards effectively served as a Paramilitary force loyal only to Mao and the NPC and the Party itself having less and less power as Mao / tGoF were the actual ones making decisions?



Yes. Many institutions in China broke down during the Cultural Revolution, as the Soviets pointed out at the time.

File: c62e7f34225e649⋯.jpg (350.24 KB, 573x773, 573:773, Untitled.jpg)


Old thread: https://8ch.net/marx/res/8560.html

As the title says. I figure a general "ask me questions" thread is good. Can be questions about socialism, US history, the Marxist position on religion, or whatever else.

198 posts and 23 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>have you read those?

No, but I've heard they're sound.

>and noticed them doing this exact same thing

Yeah Waters and Koppel belong to the US SWP too. The party's extolling of Cuba and criticism of Trotsky's Permanent Revolution theory is what makes them most distinct from other Trots. It's why other Trot parties claim the SWP is "Castroist" rather than Trotskyist (which I think is wrong, since reading their materials makes it abundantly clear they have a very high opinion of Trotsky and still subscribe to most of his views, as you've noticed.)

>"Stalinism" (even when talking about stuff that happened in the USSR decades after Stalin's death)

To Trots, "Stalinism" is a phenomenon. Stalin just happened to be the representative of the "bureaucracy" which continued after his death.

This is what allows Trots to call practically every communist leader in the world a "Stalinist" from Khrushchev to Mao to Tito to Gorbachev to whomever. If you hold that it's possible to build socialism in one country, and oppose Trotskyism, you are a "Stalinist" because such positions are used by "bureaucracies" to promote nationalism and lord over workers' states to prevent true communists from taking power.

The main disagreement between Trots is whether socialist countries are "degenerated/deformed workers' states" or "state-capitalist." Trotsky and groups like the US SWP, Sparts and SEP (the guys behind WSWS) hold to the former, groups like the British SWP and ISO hold to the latter.



>US SWP, which exalts Cuba while rather amusingly denouncing every other socialist country as "degenerated workers' states."

What's their reason for this? What makes Cuba not just another "Stalinist" "degenerated workers state" in their minds?


Do you have that quote about how the members of the War Committee formed during ww2 basically continued to rule as a shadow government and sidestepped the politburo until Stalins death?


Can you recommend me something on Yugoslavia/Titoism



If I recall right, the US SWP refers to the Soviets under Lenin, Cuba, and a few allied governments (1980s Nicaragua, Grenada under Maurice Bishop, etc.) as "workers' and peasants' governments" in transition to socialism.

I don't actually know how they differentiate Cuba from the "deformed workers' states." As I said, that position is pretty much peculiar to the US SWP and it isn't something I've bothered to find out.


Excerpts from "Stalin's Cabinet: The Politburo and Decision Making in the Post-War Years" by Yoram Gorlizki:

"It was some months after the war, and the formal dissolution of the State Defence Committee (GKO) on 4 September 1945, when the Politburo began to resume peacetime operations. Formally the Politburo continued in much the same vein as it had left off before the war, with a virtually identical membership and a similarly modest workload. At its meeting of 29 December 1945 the Politburo resolved to meet every other Tuesday for a short time, from 8 pm to 9 pm. . . . Meetings of the Politburo, however, tailed off following the session of 3 October 1946; over the rest of Stalin's reign there were only two further formal, enlarged sessions of the Politburo, on 13 December 1947 and 17 June 1949. The official Politburo in fact came to be overshadowed by the regular conferences of a narrow 'ruling group' which met routinely in Stalin's office. The composition of this circle. . . differed markedly from that of the formal Politburo. Excluded from [it] were those Politburo members who had either fallen foul of Stalin or who were cut off from the ruling circle for reasons of location or ill-health. For some time Stalin's suspicions had fallen on Voroshilov, Andreev, and, to a lesser extent, Kaganovich, all of whom were, despite their formal membership of the Politburo, not privy to the proceedings of the ruling group in the aftermath of the war. . . most resolutions issued in the name of the Politburo in the Stalin years were determined by this group. . . .

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

File: 2f4fbe8dafa77c7⋯.jpg (483.25 KB, 706x839, 706:839, Mr Jones Goes to Washingto….jpg)


Today is the 40th anniversary of the mass murder-suicides at Jonestown.

I intended to publish a big ol' article on Jim Jones, Peoples Temple and Jonestown, but I got busy and kept on finding new sources, so my quest to write a Marxist overview of this utopian cult shall have to wait another day.

To compensate, here's excerpts from one of many books I've read (based largely on interviews with a survivor named Odell Rhodes):

(pages 89-90, Rhodes was a heroin addict who agreed to join)

>Rhodes. . . was introduced to the Temple's version of social services: an appointment with a specialist to check his chronically inflamed leg; another spe­cialist to check his eyes; a trip to the dentist. He was given money to buy a special orthopedic shoe, new eyeglasses, and new clothes. "I couldn't believe it, anything you needed, all you had to do was ask for it. It wasn't just that you didn't have to pay, it was the difference between trying to get something out of welfare, standing in lines and filling out forms, and just asking for what you needed."

>At night, there were Temple meetings, but with Jones away in Cuba [touring it to report its achievements back to the Temple], the meetings were bland discussions of routine Temple busi­ness punctuated by an occasional testimony—someone thanking Jim Jones in absentia for that particular day's blessings. . .

>A few days later two counselors. . . called Rhodes into an office and went over a short list of Temple rules. When they came to the prohibition against alcohol, drugs, and tobacco, they slowed down and took special care to explain the reason behind the prohibition. Rhodes, who thought he had heard it all before, was surprised to learn that the People's Tem­ple's objection was on the grounds that mind-altering substances were means by which the ruling class controlled and exploited the poor. Rhodes simply nodded and filed the explanation away for fu­ture reference, but he was beginning to realize that this "church" he had joined was somehow different than other churches.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
2 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.
Post last edited at



Wait so what do you believe Ismail?

I know you've always had an interest in Jones but do you think the Mass Suicide was just a cover for some US gov kill off?




Sorry ignore didn't even bother checking the end of your post where you reject the idea


File: a94caf7cb77ef16⋯.jpg (261.46 KB, 671x608, 671:608, Jim Jones at pulpit.jpg)


>where you reject the idea

Yeah, if it ever comes to light that the government and CIA did exert pressure on Jonestown via agent provocateurs and the like, it wouldn't change the fact that the decision to kill everyone was Jones'.

Jones had been to Cuba a year earlier and met with Huey Newton, and they debated over what "revolutionary suicide" (a phrase coined by Huey) meant. To Huey it meant being willing to die in battle, even in the face of overwhelming odds. To Jim it meant mass suicide in the face of insurmountable odds to protest injustice.

Jones was pessimistic and thought nuclear war would erupt before socialism triumphed in the US, so his concern was to create a model society in a location where nukes weren't likely to hit. He tried it in California with communal living arrangements, then on a grander scale in Guyana with his own settlement.

Jones only really concerned himself with his congregation. He argued to his followers that he had an "advanced" conception of socialism superior to that of any party or country. And since the thousand tightly-knit residents of Jonestown (many of them elderly or children) posed no political, economic or military threat to the powers that be, "revolutionary suicide" taking the form of mass suicide to protest intolerable intrigues against them made sense to Jones, whereas Marxists and the Panthers (who envisioned the masses of workers and allied sections of American society organizing with the goal of doing away with capitalism) would obviously view that with bewilderment.

Post last edited at


What is the best book to read on Jonestown that’s actually informative?


File: 6344e6514468d0e⋯.jpg (213.8 KB, 515x623, 515:623, Jim Jones holds two kittie….jpg)


"A Thousand Lives" by Julia Scheeres is probably the best overall intro, and is an average length of 250 pages. You can find it in EPUB format here: http://b-ok.cc/book/1289547/bfc852

"The Road to Jonestown" by Jeff Guinn is the most recent. It's good, although early parts drag a bit due to Guinn's desire to reveal as much about Jones' childhood and the activities of his parents as possible. EPUB: http://b-ok.cc/book/2957275/d4d71f

"Raven" by Tim Reiterman was published only a few years after the mass murder-suicides but remains a must-read if you're interested in the subject (emphasis on the word "interested," because it's 600 pages.) EPUB: http://b-ok.cc/book/3413338/873d26

There are many other books on Jones, the Temple and Jonestown from ex-members, academics, and journalists, but the first three I gave should be sufficient if you're just curious to learn more. If you ever want info on a certain book though, feel free to ask since I've made it a goal to read as many on the subject as possible.

Post last edited at

File: 39333c4e02de75f⋯.jpg (158.48 KB, 1174x738, 587:369, bolshevik-jews.jpg)


How does /marx/ respond to the talking point of the Nazis whenever talking about Marxism as some "Jewish conspiracy", then citing that the Soviet Union's government officials was made up of 95% jews. They often like to double down on Trotsky as well for some reason even though he was purged from the party thanks to Stalin. What is the official /marx/ist response to "Jewish Bolshevism" which Nazis often like to cite as anything to the left of Adolf Hitler, including moderate liberalism.

106 posts and 53 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



>What is more natural than the existence of race?

Any other school of actual science?

>Jews attempt to destroy community and atomize everyone and destroy this natural belonging.

No capitalism if anything

>National socialism IS science in a political guise

National "Socialism" was both a Economic and societal failure read "Wages of destruction"

>Do people not feel belonging to a community?

I really dont feel the need to validate myself that way

>One must protect their own Volk

Hitler's War literally resulted in more damage being done to German culture / Society then almost anyone in the past

>Bela Kun’s government was completely Jewish


Even if true (Likely isnt but ill leave to ismail) they were Communists and thus in the right

>The Treaty of Trianon, written by Entente Jews stole 70% of Hungary’s land. Immeadiately after Jewish communists take power. This is no coincidence

Kun literally fought against the Balkan Entente (Romania / Yugo / Czechs) and the treaty of Trianon was put in place after the Hungarian Soviet fell



>Even if true (Likely isnt but ill leave to ismail)

It wasn't literally every single government post, but yeah the bulk of cabinet members were Jews. As I said, it was a situation unique to Hungary, and was akin to other countries where certain ethnic or religious groups were accused of having an inordinate influence over the government (again, to use another example, the Derg in Ethiopia was accused of being in the hands of the Amhara, the traditional "elites" of Ethiopian society, to the detriment of other ethnic groups, whereas opponents of Ethiopia's modern government often denounce it as being dominated by Tigrayans.)

There was nothing actually "Jewish" about the Kun government outside of the fact that its members were largely Jews though, e.g. there's no evidence of it trying to impose a "Talmudic form of government" or what have you. And in order for "communism is a Jewish conspiracy to oppress gentiles" to make sense, you'd need to provide more evidence than simply one short-lived government having a preponderance of Jews.

Post last edited at


As an aside, an amusing (in the context of this thread) extract from an article titled "Revolution and antisemitism: the Bolsheviks in 1917" by Brendan McGeever:

>For all that the Bolsheviks played an unquestionably crucial role in the broad socialist response to antisemitism in 1917, newspaper reports from the summer and autumn of that year show that they were frequently accused by other socialists of perpetuating antisemitism and even harbouring antisemites within the party’s social base. . .

>The Menshevik newspaper Vpered also reported in June that, at an open meeting in the Mar’ina Roshcha district of Moscow, Bolsheviks shouted down Mensheviks, accusing them of being ‘Yids’ who ‘exploit the proletariat’. Reports of Bolshevik antisemitism aimed at Mensheviks in Moscow continued throughout the July Days, and were replicated in other cities too. Ilia Ehrenburg, who would go on to be one of the most prolific and well-known Jewish writers in the Soviet Union, wrote the following letter to his friend M. A Voloshin a few days after the October insurrection. It stands as perhaps the most vivid description of the articulation between antisemitism and the revolutionary process in 1917:

>>Yesterday I was standing in line, waiting to vote for the Constituent Assembly. People were saying ‘Whoever’s against the Yids, vote for number 5! [the Bolsheviks]’, ‘Whoever’s for world-wide revolution, vote for number 5!’ The patriarch rode by, sprinkling holy water; everyone removed their hats. A group of soldiers passing by started to belt out the Internationale in his direction. . .

>Solomon Lur’e similarly observed Bolsheviks assuring voters queuing up to vote in the Constituent Assembly elections that the head of the Provisional Government, Alexander Kerensky, was in fact a Jew and that, for this reason, they should choose to support the Bolsheviks. Kerensky, of course, was not Jewish but such antisemitism did not operate according to logic or verifiable empirical observation. Indeed, the Provisional Government was frequently labelled by antisemites as ‘Jewish’, despite the fact that there were no Jews in the government. One arresting illustration of the extraordinary degPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at




Dude you're a fucking shame of us. You don't win by acting like you own this place or else you're going to get knocked off your block immediately. At least try to argue without assuming your victory and you won't be clawing back at whatever you've lost.

t. /pol/ack lurker


File: f1b20ec02ff2f70⋯.jpeg (210.73 KB, 414x353, 414:353, 65C7350D-2EB2-48BA-BB8B-6….jpeg)


I was once a lurker too, anon before I realized that I had to go on an offensive. Read the words carefully, read between the lines. You will not see English but now Hebrew. You are being duped by the Jewish method of pilpul. Their arguments are all lies and distortions of Truth. My Weltausschauung is eternal Völkisch truth, that is why victory is assured. if you weren’t a lurking newfag you’d realize that the truth is within you. Truth is in the Blood (das Blut), not in the scribblings of Jews

File: e0aee9296053278⋯.jpg (30.03 KB, 960x893, 960:893, e0aee9296053278668002440c2….jpg)


Can someone explain to me the ML consensus on what's been going on regarding the woman's role in society the last 100 years?

>was it technology or activism that made women enter the workforce?

>did women not work prior to the world wars because they were told not to, because they had to work unpaid obligatory labour like washing (which became much easier after the advent of the washing machine)?

>when the washing machine came, why did women even want to join the workforce?

>how did women get to vote?

Did the social relations change themselves or did the material conditions facilitate it?


While this isn't an answer, chapter III of the following work talks a bit about women's struggles in US history, including for suffrage and in organized labor: https://archive.org/details/HumanRightsUSStyle

Marxist historian Philip S. Foner also wrote a two-volume history of women in American labor from colonial times up to the 1970s. I have PDFs of them if you're interested.

I don't think there is a ML consensus (e.g. there's no Marxist analysis of the American women's suffrage movement that I know of, let alone a definitive work covering other subjects you mention.)



Could you perhaps tell me their main points about how women gained rights?



I haven't read the Foner books yet, and the first book I linked to I read years back.

But basically, they gained basic political rights like anyone else does: organizing into groups, protesting, running or endorsing candidates in elections, braving threats and violence, etc.

It also helped that, as with other movements, there were always bourgeois and petty-bourgeois figures who urged white and/or male capitalists to grant basic rights so that oppressed people wouldn't turn toward increasingly radical solutions to their problems.

File: f727d198fb432d6⋯.png (2.69 KB, 255x127, 255:127, Juche.png)


Non-ML here, what are your thoughts on the Juche ideology?

Do you think it needs improvement? Do you like it? Etc., etc.

7 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



No, I got it from Issue #16 of the Cold War International History Project Bulletin, titled "Inside China’s Cold War."

It contains background info, summaries of documents (including the one I posted), and the documents themselves.

The documents themselves are online, e.g. here's one example of Li Sangjo communicating with Soviet officialdom: https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/111641

Post last edited at


File: 6e4cddfd07af609⋯.jpg (195.61 KB, 1220x813, 1220:813, Science.jpg)

I have heard past few years about great achievements in North Korea's industry and science.

Does anyone has any good information on their electronics,hardware,software and heavy civilian industry like cars and tractors?



This one is always brought up as an easy way to dispel all criticisms of North Korea.


Do you think that with the Obtaining of Nuclear arms and the Detente with the South the DPRK should consider abandoning Songun and focus on building up its civilian economy?



Yes. That's pretty much Kim Jong Un's goal.

File: 44291a908dc90ec⋯.jpg (42.08 KB, 252x311, 252:311, Marien Ngouabi.jpg)


*coolest African leader from cold war era*

Nothing Personal, Kid

4 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.




He was too good for this world...


File: efd2451b634b759⋯.jpg (59.94 KB, 464x715, 464:715, vol-3-foto-cover.jpg)

Anyone here fuck with John Garang? New Sudan > Southern Separatism by a mile


File: 10a40d957905c19⋯.jpg (103.44 KB, 467x599, 467:599, Agostinho Neto.jpg)


Thomas Sankara was good leader, but don't overlook other great African revolutionaries who did just as much good and were just as brutally oppressed.


I have a question here: /pol/ likes to pretend that the struggles of post-independence African states has been down to "niggers being dumb" or some shit. What you guys suppose is tge biggest reason for it? I'm inclined to say neocolonialism, how many good leaders were killed/deposed in the early years? But I'd also be interested to hear why places like Tanzania didn't seem to see much improvement under Michel. Maybe I'm wrong though.



>Tanzania didn't seem to see much improvement under Michel.

Tanzania and Mozambique are very different countries, and the leader of the former was Nyerere.

Mozambique and Angola had to deal with ruinous civil wars. Here's one book on that subject: http://b-ok.cc/book/1085701/3365f5

As for Tanzania, while Nyerere's economic policies were disappointing, his record in other fields was generally quite good. To quote the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/15/world/julius-nyerere-of-tanzania-dies-preached-african-socialism-to-the-world.html):

>After vast investment in education, literacy rose phenomenally, and 83 percent of Tanzanians were able to read and write. Mr. Nyerere also succeeded in promoting Swahili so that it superseded dozens of tribal tongues to become a true national language.

>Some Western countries, notably the Scandinavians, were so impressed that they provided billions of dollars, making Tanzania one of the 10 largest recipients of foreign aid per capita. . . .

>Mr. Nyerere also gained international prestige for his principled support of the struggles for majority rule in South Africa, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Angola, and for Tanzania's military counter offensive against Idi Amin of Uganda, which routed the dictator and sent him into exile. The third world honored him, and he won the respect of such Western leaders as Olof Palme, Pierre Trudeau, Willy Brandt and Jimmy Carter.

File: 162dce9840bad84⋯.png (12.63 KB, 560x407, 560:407, 1499185347389.png)


>We're not coming for your toothbrush, silly fash. We're coming for the private property being kept away from the people.

Here's a list of things that are considered private property in the normal world:

>My house

>My car

>My money

>My personal possessions

>My overall material wealth

>My automated manufacturing plant that i built from the ground up

>My investments

And you want to take these things away from me for what again? I'm really looking for an intellectual discussion.

Protip: Telling me to read marxist books is the equivalent of /pol/ telling you to read siege. So spill your thoughts and convictions.

18 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



A pretty absurd statement considering that those "goyim" capitalists exploit the labor of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands or even millions, of "goyim" proletarians (and however many Jews happen to be employed doing the same work.)



Putting parentheses around something doesn't make it jewish if that's what you're implying cause i really have no fucking cluse what you're implying really).


>we're coming for your property being kept away from the people

so they're coming for my toothbrush?

who the fuck said that



It’s okay if the capitalists / exploiting class are white people. They actually think that



They don't even understand the concept of "exploiting class". They think there's superior and inferior races and that explains the entirety of politics, economy and culture.

File: eb0af25f407e948⋯.png (638.51 KB, 1403x935, 1403:935, EU.png)

File: f73620676e5b89d⋯.png (290.71 KB, 1024x403, 1024:403, bewaremedia.png)


Can anyone give me any good information on how EU and Japanese imperialism today? There's thousands of books on US imperialism and recently Tony Norfield even made the effort to write a book on modern British imperialism but almost nothing in-depth on the two major players in the West bloc: the EU nations and Japan.

Also, I don't know if anyone here considers South Korea imperialist but if you have any information on that I would appreciate it. I know about some of the nasty things they did in Vietnam plus buying up former Soviet/East bloc assets at firesale prices post-1992 but not much more.

14 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



What do they mean by top export partner? Is it the country that takes in most goods from the country on the map?



Sorry for bad grammar in the post. This map shows which country receives most export from which county. After fall of socialism in the east, German (subsidized)mega companies brought a lot of industry in the east to control the markets there. Germany also owns British van and rolls Royce companies and perhaps many other companies in the west as well as east..



Not saying that I support Taiwan, but is financial and diplomatic support of a country seriously enough to speak of "imperialism"?



Before Taiwan became a developed country it was a colony controlled by Chinese reactionaries who wished to mount an assault to retake the mainland using imperialist support in the best case and to balkanize China in the worst case.

Today, Taiwan is a developed country but it still retains colonial characteristics in politics, culture and military areas. When Taiwan was beginning its ascent to development it was sweatshop country and Japan was the number two foreign beneficiary of the exploitation of Taiwan's working class.



Here's a good and fairly short text from 2015 by Belgian Marxist party leader Peter Mertens on the EU's "colonial" vision on Greece. Particularly interesting because it points at the excessive German dominance that has always been omnipresent in the EU sructures.


File: 232b8d8b6c7d043⋯.jpeg (117.57 KB, 1242x1294, 621:647, FEA65FB0-569B-4018-83A3-F….jpeg)

File: ce578e56f8031b6⋯.jpeg (112.25 KB, 1242x1234, 621:617, 306EF942-6C48-47F4-8A25-9….jpeg)

File: 9e52acb899551b9⋯.jpeg (98.11 KB, 1242x1119, 414:373, CB612307-4DC2-4E25-9911-8….jpeg)

File: 97e2f3fcf9f9ee8⋯.jpeg (399.21 KB, 1237x820, 1237:820, CEA24F5A-654E-4584-A5D4-5….jpeg)

File: 53d32063b48a927⋯.png (5.07 KB, 1280x853, 1280:853, 4ACECEDD-5C1D-4DD3-B73E-60….png)


Is there a single state that is more lied about than Democratic Kampuchea in the years between 1975 and 1979? Once I discovered that the “Cambodian Genocide” was a hoax, or at least severely overblown, I began to see the entire regime in a much different light. I began to think, who wants me to believe that three million died? Who indeed but the bourgeoisie and imperialists? Marxists everywhere disavow him for his admittedly un-Marxist and ultra-leftist tendancies, instead falling for every piece of imperialist propaganda and excepting without critical thought that THREE MILLION PEOPLE were slaughtered merely because Pol Pot was just an evil man.

If the PRK (Vietnamese puppet government) claimed three million people died, which was nearly HALF of the 1975 population of when Pol Pot came to power, how did post-DK estimates by both the Cambodian government and various international agencies show 7.2 million people in Cambodia after 1979, not to mention those who had fled abroad into Thailand (a half million or more). You can’t have it both ways. The puppet government claimed three million dead and 7 million still alive from the 7 million before 1975….


These are Vickery’s claims in the book from the Marxist Regimes series (1986). Even the World Bank’s population data from Cambodia refutes the “genocide” narrative and largely supports Vickery’s data. There was NO genocide, there may have been overreaches by the DK government in some places but remember the war and turbulence at the time. Also, it would be retarded to claim that all 750,000 people who died during the time Cambodia was DK were deaths directly caused by Pol Pot alone because he was just evil or crazy. As I’ve said, DK was at war with social-imperialist Vietnam, being bombed by America, you name it.


I haven't looked into Cambodian demographics so I can't comment on that. However...

>As I’ve said, DK was at war with social-imperialist Vietnam

The Khmer Rouge attacked Vietnam. In response to continued attacks, Vietnam overthrew the KR.

On what basis do you consider Vietnam "social-imperialist"? It can't simply be because its army moved into another country, otherwise using that logic the Soviets from Lenin onward were "social-imperialist."


File: 72f636b45bd2777⋯.pdf (331.9 KB, On the side of Pol Pot - U….pdf)

File: 3c5a6a3db1e1f94⋯.pdf (341.37 KB, Uncle Sam and Pol Pot (Joh….pdf)


The genocide is documented through several photographs and testimonies. Also Pol Pot's Kampuchea carried out killings of intellectuals for the sake of being intellectuals, was directly supported by the CIA (PDFs related) and was justly overthrown by communists.

There is a reason the tankiest of tankies are hesitant to defend this man.




Also, no one claimed that every single death in Kampuchea was committed by Pol Pot personally. Such claims aren't even made about Hitler or Himmler by Marxists; obviously there's always a variety of factors and actors to be reckoned with. However this doesn't suddenly remove all responsibility Hitler and Himmler bore for the Holocaust. I don't see why the same wouldn't hold true for Pol Pot.

File: e886e1b4cfa939d⋯.png (41.25 KB, 240x273, 80:91, Trotskywojack.png)


Let's discuss the Marxist-Leninist view on homosexuality and associated forms of gender identity. What should it be? Should Leninists even concern themselves with it? Were the leaders of the past wrong on sexual matters I sort of doubt this?

Gearoid O Colmain wrote an interesting but terribly eclectic series on this subject:





For the common view, this Stalin society represents the mainstream view among most Leninists online: http://www.stalinsociety.org/2015/04/08/homosexuality-in-the-ussr/

Personally, I no longer believe that anyone is born gay as LGBT lobbies claim or that its an unchangeable preference. I also do not believe that trans surgery and hormone therapy is medically advisable. But I am not against these people as people; nor am I particularly moralistic about it even though I no longer believe in the ideology justifying their practices. What do you comrades think?

60 posts and 22 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



That's what you get when former fascists who joined the left aren't willing to abolish their reactionary ideology entirely. A major issue on 8chan tbh



Yeah it's very clear that revolutionaries should be in favor of overcoming of the nuclear family as a form of social organization. Appealing to conservative ideology/nostalgia re. the family, gender, sex, etc. is just opportunism. And this is coming from someone who considers them self rather conservative in their private conduct.



I was truly convinced by your Marxist analysis comrade, I shall henceforth reject my indoctrination and start being attracted to women tomorrow.



Yet another win for anti-revisionism



Fuck off

File: 1d80622b86f1fd6⋯.jpg (117.65 KB, 382x338, 191:169, Lenin reading.jpg)


If you have a question about Soviet history or about specific policies enacted in the USSR, feel free to ask them here.

704 posts and 217 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



That is correct. There were many unjust acts committed under Stalin, many of which were recognized and amends made after 1953.


How was Stalin seen in the west during his lifetime and when did he become this sort of megadictator in western media?


File: dd088a8c459590a⋯.jpg (119.37 KB, 587x800, 587:800, Soviet Russia Today Novemb….jpg)


I collected four Western analyses of Stalin from 1920, 1922, 1923 and 1924 here: https://www.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/4dzzl3/four_western_analyses_of_stalin_from_19201924/

As you can see, they focus on him as an organization man who works hard and gets stuff done.

When it came to the struggle against Trotsky, Stalin was portrayed as a "moderate" (as you can see in Strong's 1924 article in the above link) who wanted to focus on domestic reconstruction rather than fomenting revolution abroad.

After Stalin became undisputed leader of the USSR after the defeat of Bukharin's faction, and as the Soviet government reported on the results of collectivization and especially industrialization, the image emerged of the "Man of Steel" exacting enormous sacrifices for the ultimate good of his country. Isaac Don Levine, author of one of the earliest bios of Stalin, viewed him "as a super-Ataturk, a perhaps necessarily harsh modernizer of his country. . . he secluded himself in the Kremlin, avoiding the limelight and public honors. As for Stalin's other personal habits, Levine had him occasionally sipping a little Georgian wine, smoking his pipe incessantly, talking very little, and having 'no vices.'"

Another big theme of accounts of Stalin in the 1920s-30s was his "Asiatic" background, being portrayed as either dragging his nation kicking and screaming out of its "Tatar-Mongol" past, or representing the threat of the barbaric East against the civilized West.

With the Great Purges Stalin's reputation as a cold, determined, perhaps even paranoid autocrat was cemented. There was a significant section of public opinion viewing him more positively and drawing a clear distinction between his style of leadership and Hitler's (as the Webbs and Anna Louise Strong did), but the non-aggression pact between the USSR and Germany greatly intensified the belief that both countries were rulPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


Studying early post-Lenin party and nation history until it seems that entire decade was lost.

After Lenin died power struggle between right opposition led by Bukharin,Stalin and Trotsky erupted,trough most of remaining 20's and early 30's. Only after Trotsky exiled and Bukharin faction defeated major projects like industrialization and collectivization took place, however it was later than it could have,kulak's who maintained power trough the 20's burned crops,Stalin's paranoia killed smart people and led to Red Army purges.

From what I read Stalin's government did allow small business and cooperative enterprises while state controlled all the major sectors.

questions are

1) Why didn't Lenin made more clear who is successor and what road should Soviet Union head?

2) What was Stalin's economic policy? Did he allow small business?

3) If so, why engage in power struggle with Bukharin, why not allow small business to function while building major factories, and if Stalin was against small business then why not continue NEP mixed with large factories?

4) What exactly was happening in the Soviet Union between 1925's to 1935's and what was happening inside the communist party?



1. He presumably thought a collective leadership would take power after his death.

2. Stalin advocated continuing the NEP until the late 1920s. This was the basis of his alliance with Bukharin against Trotsky. Both men broke with each other when Stalin argued it was necessary to begin industrialization and collectivization.

3. By 1927 the USSR had restored its economy to the level of Russia in 1913. With that the case, Stalin argued that it was now time to begin a "socialist offensive" to put an end to capitalist elements in town and countryside as well as raise the defense capabilities of the country in anticipation of war with one or more imperialist countries. Bukharin's opposition to collectivization and his different, far more gradual strategy to industrialize were fundamentally incompatible with what Stalin argued for. Can you elaborate what you mean by "NEP mixed with large factories"?

4. Trotskyist and Bukharinist factions defeated, NEP ended as the five-year plans emerged, socialism was built, Kirov was assassinated (which led to the Great Purges), Hitler's rise to power led to the Comintern adopted the Popular Front policy. As for the CPSU, the fairly open debates that characterized it in the 1920s came to an end. Party cadres of working-class or peasant origin, who were the beneficiaries rather than initiators of the October Revolution, began replacing Old Bolsheviks in party leadership positions (especially after the Great Purges.)

File: 1aba33ae097dc87⋯.jpg (30.71 KB, 258x300, 43:50, 1-karl-marx-russian-school.jpg)


Seeming as /leftypol/ is useless for the this kind of thread, this will be the designated Capital reading thread. The gist is that people new to Marx, like me, will be able to ask here questions specifically regarding the volumes of Capital.

Starting on page 63 (in the PDF arranged by marxists.org), I run into this long and confusing paragraph:

>In a given country there take place every day at the same time, but in different localities, numerous one-sided metamorphoses of commodities, or, in other words, numerous sales and numerous purchases. The commodities are equated beforehand in imagination, by their prices, to definite quantities of money.

So far so good.

>And since, in the form of circulation now under consideration, money and commodities always come bodily face to face, one at the positive pole of purchase, the other at the negative pole of sale,

>it is clear that the amount of the means of circulation required, is determined beforehand by the sum of the prices of all these commodities. As a matter of fact, the money in reality represents the quantity or sum of gold ideally expressed beforehand by the sum of the prices of the commodities. The equality of these two sums is therefore self-evident.

What exactly did he mean by "determined beforehand" and "ideally"? As some platonic sum of prices that should be if it's converted to money or the literal equality of value of the the amount of prices to the circulating currency? Judging by the paragraph on the next page I'm inclined to think of the former.

>We know, however, that, the values of commodities remaining constant, their prices vary with the value of gold (the material of money), rising in proportion as it falls, and falling in proportion as it rises. Now if, in consequence of such a rise or fall in the value of gold, the sum of the prices of commodities fall or rise, the quantity of money in currency must fall or rise to the same extent.

>The change in the quantity of the circulating medium is, in this case, it is true, caused by the money itself, yet not in virtue of its function as a medium of circulation, but of its function as a measurPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

95 posts and 18 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 5a081bba0726502⋯.jpg (10.79 KB, 250x339, 250:339, Marx1.jpg)

Still counting on someone to answer my questions about volume 2. Gonna start volume 3 in a few days.


File: 16e595ef7b9745e⋯.jpg (45.33 KB, 903x960, 301:320, brainlet3.jpg)

retard here. Just started chapter 3.

When he starts babbling on about exponents it just flies right over my head. So, what I've gathered from section 1:

Price is the form of appearance of value, a real thing taking the form of an abstract thing.

The exchange ratio is the relation between price and value. It's at this point that there's a measurable difference between the two?

"...whose laws can only assert themselves as blindly operating averages between constant irregularities."

Is he saying here that prices tend to average around value?

"...with the result that price ceases altogether to express value"

And now it doesn't because muh qualitative contradiction?

Help me make sense of all this pls



I'll be honest I remember the least from the first chapters of volume 1 and I came in understanding the LTV from other introductory texts, so take of my answers what you will. Which translation of Capital are you reading anyway?

>The exchange ratio is the relation between price and value.

The exchange ratio is the socially necessary labor time ratio between commodity X and commodity Y.

1 coat: 20 linen

I don't recall he talked much about prices in volume 1 besides a few remarks. In most, if not all, of the scenarios he presents he preemptively states that the price is equal to the value, to avoid complications. If my answer isn't what you meant then I've completely forgotten this part. Post the part where he talks about it.

>Is he saying here that prices tend to average around value?

I couldn't find the quote you posted in my version and I'm not sure about the context of that cut-off sentence, so my best reference is to volume 3 where he explains much more lucidly about the nature of prices.

To put it simply and shortly, the value of a commodity (i.e. its socially necessary labor time) is the average around which prices fluctuate, and only over time does a trend emerge.

>And now it doesn't because muh qualitative contradiction?

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Looking at the half-quote I'm guessing (and really there's nothing else to guess but that) he meant that under certain conditions price does not represent value anymore. He gives several explanations in vol. 3.



>To put it simply and shortly, the value of a commodity (i.e. its socially necessary labor time) is the average around which prices fluctuate, and only over time does a trend emerge.

That's what I figured Marx was saying.

>I couldn't find the quote you posted in my version

Sorry, here's the full passage. Section 1 of chapter 3:

>The possibility, therefore, of a quantitative incongruity between price and magnitude of value, i.e. the possibility that the price may diverge from the magnitude of value, is inherent in the price-form itself. This is not a defect, but, on the contrary, it makes this form the adequate one for a mode of production whose laws can only assert themselves as blindly operating averages between constant irregularities.

The price-form, however, is not only compatible with the possibility of a quantitative incongruity between magnitude of value and price, i.e. between the magnitude of value and its own expression in money, but it may also harbour a qualitative contradiction, with the result that price ceases altogether to express value, despite the fact that money is nothing but the value-form of commodities. Things which in and for themselves are not commodities, things such as conscience, honour, etc., can be offered for sale by their holders, and thus acquire the form of commodities through their price.

>volume 3 where he explains much more lucidly about the nature of prices.

>he meant that under certain conditions price does not represent value anymore. He gives several explanations in vol. 3.

Ok, I'll try to not overthink prices too much 'til I get to volume 3.

Thanks mate.


So I've been reading volume 3 for a while now, most of my notes were wiped from my e-reader but I still have a few from a recent chapter I read.

Chapter 17 - Commercial Profit

So overall I understand what he's talking about but I can't comprehend what he means towards the end of the chapter about B+K+b + profit on B+K+b

- B is the cost of production he's covering and the profit which the merchant receives is merely selling the commodity at its full value instead of the industrialist's discount for the merchant. So that's quite obvious.

- K is the necessary advancement of constant capital for circulation. The cost is then added to the commodity, which is normal, but why is there a profit on constant capital?

- b is the necessary advancement of variable capital for circulation. But since it creates no value, its only way to create surplus value is to reduce the pay even blow the price of reproduction. Marx doesn't seem to mention it explicitly, he only writes that the employees will be paid less.

P. 202 (from Marxists.org)

>B merely recovers the purchase price and adds nothing to it but the profit on B. K adds the profit on K, and K itself; but K + the profit on K, the part of the circulation costs advanced in the form of constant capital + the corresponding average profit, would be larger in the hands of the industrial capitalist than in the merchant's. The shrinking of the average profit appears in the form of the full average profit calculated after deducting B + K from the advanced industrial capital, with the deduction from the average profit on B + K paid to the merchant, so that this deduction appears as the profit of a specific capital, merchant's capital.

P. 203

>But if b were not invested by the merchant in wages — since b is paid only for commercial labour, hence labour required, to realise the value of the commodity — capital thrown on the market by industrial capital — the matter would stand as follows: to buy or sell for B = 100, the merchant would devote his time, and we wish to assume that this is the only time at his dispPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Delete Post [ ]
Previous [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
| Catalog | Nerve Center | Cancer
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / ausneets / fur / mde / o / tacos / vg / vichan ]