[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / baaa / choroy / dempart / jenny / leo / polder / vg / vietnam ]

/marx/ - Marxism

It makes you smart

Catalog   Archive

Winner of the 72rd Attention-Hungry Games
/otter/ - The Church of Otter

February 2019 - 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

93 posts and 35 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
Post last edited at



Well the Google definition is "a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force" or otherwise "a person who behaves in an autocratic way."

There are cases during the 1930s where Stalin made a suggestion and his colleagues adopted a different (but not antagonistic) measure instead.

On the other hand, only six Central Committee meetings were held in the last sixteen years of Stalin's life, even though it was supposed to meet every four months according to the 18th Congress.

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: 58837d671d897f7⋯.jpg (1.14 MB, 878x1275, 878:1275, It is Lenin.jpg)


Old thread: https://8ch.net/marx/res/4702.html

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

474 posts and 52 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I have been told by an acquaintance that before 'Holodomor', the Soviet government under Stalin instituted numerous policies (such as an apparent attempt to 'ban' the Ukrainian language) which constituted as 'genocide'. He further claimed a majority of 'genocide' historians consider the events of the Ukrainian famine and policies surrounding it to be a genocide.

Is there any truth in this? What were Soviet policies towards Ukraine during Stalin's rule?



>I have been told by an acquaintance

Curious, was he a Ukrainian or Balt?



He is British.



In the first few years after the October Revolution there were Bolsheviks who denied the existence of a Ukrainian nation. A prominent example (who changed his mind in 1921) was Christian Rakovsky, a Bulgarian who served as the first head of government of the Ukrainian SSR, which as you might imagine made more than a few Ukrainians upset.

In the 1920s-30s there was a policy known as Korenizatsiya, which involved the promotion of national languages in the republics as well as the elevation of national cadres. To quote one source concerning the Ukraine (Terry Martin, Affirmative Action Empire, 2001, p. 102):

>The percentage of Ukrainian-language theaters for workers increased from 25 percent in 1928 to 75 percent by 1931. Concerts and exhibitions were held overwhelmingly in Ukrainian. Ukrainian-language books and newspapers were made increasingly more accessible. By 1931, 32 percent of books in trade union libraries were Ukrainian language, although for heavy industry unions the figures varied from 14.5 percent to 19.3 percent. By 1933, the number of Ukrainian books in trade union libraries had increased to 38 percent. This dramatic growth occurred thanks to an April 1932 Narkompros decree that required that 85 percent of books sent to all libraries be in the Ukrainian language. By the early 1930s, in many factories there were as many subscriptions to Ukrainian-language newspapers as to Russian ones.

On the other hand, in 1933 Mykola Skrypnyk (the Ukrainian People's Commissar for Education) was accused of nationalist deviations and ended up dismissed from his post, whereupon he committed suicide. He was rehabilitated in 1962, the charges against him declared to be false or exaggerated. Nonetheless, Ukrainian language and culture remained secure.

>He further claimed a majority of 'genocide' historians consider the events of the Ukrainian famine and policies surrounding it to be a genocide.

Well naturally those who consider the Ukrainian famine an act of genocide will consider it genocidal. Yet Robert Conquest, Lynne Viola, R.W.Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at


Out of all the SSRs, which did the best? Which had the highest quality of life, which was the most developed, etc? I assume the RSFSR by lieu of being the largest, the center of political life, etc., but if we don't count it?

How was the CPSU structured exactly? They make references to "All-Union", so were there other sub-parties in the different SSRs? Like for example a CPKSSR in the case of the Kazakhs or whatever? If so, how independent were they, how much say did they have over their own areas? How many members did the CPSU have at its height height?

How much bourgeois nationalism was present in people? Like did people think of themselves as "Russians" or "Ukrainians" or "Tajiks" or whatever, or did they think of themselves as Soviets? How was Soviet "socialist patriotism" different from western nationalism and patriotism?

How were religion and the religious treated in general? Could you be a professed Christian for example? Were there still churches and places of worship? How much tolerance in general was there for people practicing their religion? As I understand Islam was still practiced in parts of Soviet Asia, is that right?

Was there any particular country that could be described as being the Soviets closest and friendliest ally? It seems like a lot of their relationships in general with their friends were difficult.

How much aid did the Soviet Union give to the third world/developing world? What kind of aid? In which ways was the aid different from this western, neo-colonial aid that we've come to know, designed to subjugate countries for western capitalists and exploiters? Did the Soviets really not exploit the countries they aided, for example by taking their natural wealth in return for providing military aid or some such? Was it really just out of socialist solidarity and internationalism?

I've heard that Brezhnev introduced certain freedoms, is this true? What freedoms?

How was the state structured? How were decisions made? Was there a Soviet parliament or congress? How was legislation handlePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

File: f06f26c37acc5ca⋯.jpg (130.31 KB, 575x800, 23:32, Patrice Lumumba.jpg)


Old thread: https://8ch.net/marx/res/11618.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.

275 posts and 12 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
Post last edited at



I don't know about that particular charge, but given everything else about the KR it wouldn't be surprising if some of its soldiers associated wearing glasses with being an intellectual and acted accordingly.


I can't comment on the specifics, but in the past few years China has canceled the debt of various African countries. See also: https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/China-Offers-African-Nations-60-Billion-in-Development-with-No-Strings-Attached-20180903-0005.html

The US government is actually using the same "debt trap" argument as the article you posted to try and discredit China.

>China's assistance has helped many developing countries improve their independent development capabilities and levels, Hua Chunying, spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry said in a statement on Sunday, rejecting the "debt trap" accusation made by US Vice President Mike Pence at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) CEO Summit on Saturday.

>"No developing country has ever run into debt problems as a result of working with China," she said, adding that China has been helping other countries with their economic and social development with no political strings attached.

(Source: https://news.cgtn.com/news/3d3d514e78676a4e30457a6333566d54/share_p.html)


what do you think of the Solidarność? Can you give me an overview of it?



It was a trade union backed by the CIA and Vatican, see for instance: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,159069,00.html

Its leader, Lech Walesa, represented Solidarity's dominant conservative wing that stressed close ties to the Catholic Church, the outlawing of abortion, etc. He visited Britain during the miners' strike and praised Thatcher for her suppression of it. Later he ended up leader of Poland and, similar to Yeltsin, sought autocratic powers in order to subject the country to economic "shock therapy."

There were also members of Solidarity who envisioned establishing a system similar to Yugoslavia, but these subordinated themselves to Walesa and Co., who carried out the restoration of capitalism.

There's a whole book on the origins of Solidarity which I recommend: https://archive.org/details/ClassStruggleInSocialistPoland


What do you say to the comrades who day dream too much about the revolution? I feel as though it's very off putting to the proles when you hear a communist talk about how they want to kill the rich and reenact the landlord killings in china.



Yes. The CPUSA back in the day gave a good summary of the question:

>Social revolution is basic transformation of society, basic change in economic, political and social relationships. More, socialist revolution represents a transition in which not a tiny minority of exploiters but the overwhelming majority—the working class and all working people—become the rulers.

>So profound a transformation cannot be made by a coup or conspiracy. It can only be effected through active participation of masses of people, black and white together. It can occur only when millions ordinarily indifferent to the political process, or at most passive participants in it, are brought actively into political life. . . supported at the very least by the sympathy of a popular majority. . . .

>Of course, we advocate social change by peaceful means, through political institutions and people's organizations within the American Constitutional framework. But the people's democratic will, our advocacy, and the democratic institutions of our country are not the sole historical factors that will determine the path of social change in the United States.

>There is also monopoly power and the question of how it will be exercised. American historical experience demonstrates it is naive to think that monopoly capital would be restrained by Constitutional scruples from resorting to violence to thwart the most democratic mandate for a socialist transformation. No ruling class relinquishes power passively and voluntarily. Hence the historical question still to be answered is: will the financial oligarchy be able to inflict a bloody ordeal on the country?

>It is of course impossible to give the answer to this question today. Such a question can be answered only when the socialist revolution is the immediate order of business, and in terms of the precise situation prevailing at that time. The exact tactics of revolution can be determined only when a revolutionary situation matures when the ruling class can no lPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

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.


Ismail Edit: If you're a fascist and want to argue in favor of fascism and/or that Marxism is Jewish, keep all such discussion in this thread.

325 posts and 106 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
Post last edited at



>When they are forced to answer this question, the facade of «Englightenment ideals,»

When the Nazis took power, Göbbels declared that they would "erase 1789 from history."

Richard Spencer mocked the words of the Declaration of Independence as "faggy" and "very Enlightenment."

In my experience fascists attack the French Revolution and the ideals behind it as scarcely less "Jewish" than the October Revolution. So they don't even have that façade.

>Please let this end the thread.

I see no harm in keeping this one thread around. The original poster asked "How does /marx/ respond to the talking point of the Nazis" and we've given plenty of examples for people to see for themselves.




Also the notorious American group, the Proud Boys, are literally named after a cut song from the Disney film Aladdin where the main character sings about how he has disappointed his mother and wants to do better.


I didn't mean take down the thread, I mean I hope this makes them stop responding. I agree the thread is a good aggregate of sources.


It’s like Operation Bagration 1944 up in this shit the way comrades are obliterating Nazi after Nazi after Nazi after Nazi. Ismail, you have truly the patience of a saint. This thread should be required reading for all people.



>the words of the Declaration of Independence as "faggy" and "very Enlightenment."

They are though. Of course a kike like (((Ismail))) adheres to bourgeois ideology, faggot



As Lenin pointed out, "Marxism has won its historic significance as the ideology of the revolutionary proletariat because, far from rejecting the most valuable achievements of the bourgeois epoch, it has, on the contrary, assimilated and refashioned everything of value in the more than two thousand years of the development of human thought and culture."

He also noted, "One cannot be a Marxist without feeling the deepest respect for the great bourgeois revolutionaries who had an historic right to speak for their respective bourgeois 'fatherlands', and, in the struggle against feudalism, led tens of millions of people in the new nations towards a civilised life."

This is why the Nazis abhor 1789 and attack the Declaration of Independence. Hitler declared that democracy led to Marxism and interfered with the "aristocracy of nature." The bourgeoisie (which finances fascist movements) have long sought to obliterate the progressive significance of the bourgeois revolutions, precisely because the working-class can make use of them for its own struggle for emancipation. It's why plenty of bourgeois authors in France actually denounce the French Revolution, while their counterparts across the ocean argue the American Revolution is to be lauded as a defense of the conservative status quo and thus not a "real" revolution. To even speak of there having been an English Revolution (rather than "merely" an English Civil War) is to indicate whether the author in question is a Marxist or not.

When the CPUSA was persecuted for supposedly teaching the use of "force and violence" to overthrow the government, its members pointed out that it was in fact upholding a principle contained in the Declaration of Independence: "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of [Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Lincoln likewise declared, "ThiPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at

File: f9a8bd80df64e7f⋯.png (43.05 KB, 180x192, 15:16, 180px-Coat_of_Arms_of_Demo….png)


There is a lot of talk on internet basketweaving board about the USSR, China, even Venezuela and Cuba, but Yugoslavia is seldomly mentioned. This is why I think this thread is needed.

In the 90s everything from the socialist era disappeared for a bit, but it was not erased. And after 2008 old literature came back again and lots of study has been dedicated to the Yugoslav socialist experience - by a new generation, not old commies. Even a political party in Slovenia, fueled by marxism, entered parliament. Since then they watered down their ideology and rhetoricis, but still.

Yugoslavia followed USSR after ww2 until 1948, but then they started their own path of socialist self-management. They also let in the market which eventually brought a downfall and it is an important lesson learned.

Am gmt+1, so will be answering mostly during when its day here.

2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



Is it true Stalin tried to get him killed various times? was it for his market socialism?

And as for a question relating to your experience, how was your life in general? by "socialist experience" i assumed you meant you were a citizen in Yugoslavia, sorry if i misinterpreted you.



It is true, no it wasn't because of market socialism. It was because Yugoslavia pursued its own policies, its own foreign policy, it supplied Greek communists with weapons, there were talks about Bulgaria joining the federation etc. Many things rustled Stalin's jimmies.

Because the Yugoslav communists were kind of pissed as they were the only ones that had a standing army already during WW2 and they liberated the country themselves, unlike all the

other Eastern block and even Western states that were liberated by Red army or Americans+Brits. So TIto said: Stalin, listen, we did all the heavy lifting by ourselves, we will have an independent politics etc.

Well I do live here, but my personal experience is only until the end of primary school, which isn't nothing I guess :D I can also share experiences of my parents, grandparents and other folk.

My experience was quite positive, even though the 80s were the height of the crisis. Inflation was rampant, but there weren't any hunger, lack of medicines etc. Oh yeah, there was one major thing: a shortage of bananas, which Yugoslavia didn't have and had to import. Also the economy didn't "collapse" as some people say, it was still going - Slovenian firms especially exported a lot, and this number grew in the 80s as foreign currencies were badly needed. What brought the collapse were rising nationalistic tensions. There was also a "trade war" between Slovenia and Serbia - imagine that.

I also remember things being less alienated: everything: work, interpersonal relations etc, everything was more open, real idk, how to express this.

We went to the seaside every year with the family, we went ont trips (abroad as well), we lived in a 65 square meter appartment (family of 4), my dad worked for a small private electrical firm, my mom was a low bureaucrat etc.


>Things were much different in Yugoslavia, where the means of production weren't of the state but literally of the workers through workers self management. There were workers councils and the workers voted on everything: production, production process, they voted for the CEOs, wages, if they will employ new workers, how the surplus produced shall be spent etc.

Isn't this syndicalism? how did this mode of production work out in practice?

I don't know really what syndicalism is or means - because there still was the state and its apparatus and the communists led the state. There were elections every year, in company and on municipial levels and delgates were chosen to go to various representative bodies.

There is also this good article about the last years of Yugoslavia: https://arhiv.rosalux.rs/en/artikl.php?id=410


File: a5361bb5aea5a17⋯.png (217.97 KB, 300x399, 100:133, 300px-Zgrabimo_oruC5BEje_s….png)

Yugoslavia was the best country us southern slavs ever where, ot ever will be. There are actually people in Croatia now who say that Austria-Hungary wasn't that bad. Some even completely ignore the existence of Yugoslavia and talk about the A-H empire as if it were the peak of Croatianism. People will say shit like "Croatians weren't even allowed to declare their Croatianness" but then that's a fucking lie, cause most people had 'nationality: Croatian" in their Yugoslav passports. Slovenians were allowed to keep their language as official language, for fucks sake, despite no one else in Yugoslavia speaking it.

We will never have it as good as we had it in Yugoslavia.


File: 821ab34c344bfe9⋯.jpg (1.1 MB, 1242x1238, 621:619, jazz music intensifies.jpg)

Some details about how Socialist Yugoslavia came into existence.

By the end of 1941 Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Romania, France, Poland, The Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Czech Republic, Greece all either fell to the nazi or fascist armies or signed the Tripartite pact. Yugoslavia was put under a lot of pressure to also join and the government eventually decided to do so. But mass protests broke out (they were not organized by the communists, but they were in the front lines when the protests erupted) and an Serbian army general with massive help from the British carried out a coup. A few days later Germany invaded Yugoslavia and all the established political forces fled for their lives. The Ustaši got to power in Croatia and the communists swiftly started organizing an armed resistance guerilla movement.

By 1943 they had almost no recognition from the allies - this happened in the Teheran conference and still in 1943 they called the AVNOJ (Anti-Fascist Council for the National Liberation of Yugoslavia) to which representatives of different factions of the National liberation movement were elected. In AVNOJ, deputies and delegates, independently of external factors, declared the autonomy and independence of the anti-fascist resistance and the future regime of Yugoslavia. They "cut off" the king's head, without physically doing it. With this decision - to declare a new state and to declare the old government that ran away as non-existent, the Partisans set the Allies before a sharp choice - to continue supporting the king that had no army and no fighters against Germany or to give support to Tito's partisans that have been battling the axis for 2 years now. The Yugoslav partisans, led by the communists, decided not to wait for further negotiations and calculations of the "great powers", they declared independence on the basis of the will of the peoples of Yugoslavia.

File: bd5f7d4f05efe77⋯.jpg (416.1 KB, 1242x1813, 1242:1813, New Zealand muslim prayer ….jpg)


The absolute state of the left.

Seriously though, what do you guys even do to combat brown idpol? You seem to try and shut it down hard when white people do it, but that's only 10% of Earth's population.

28 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



Hoxha would like a word with you



>ranting about 1789

What? What do Nazis have to do with 1789



They hold it in contempt. See: >>13668


File: 548b7914959cb5d⋯.jpg (13.13 KB, 195x259, 195:259, when she asks where the br….jpg)


Interesting, usually I see fascist stuff like patriot prayer, resist marxism, American Renaissance, etc as pretending to be the heirs of the American Revolution. I know one of the fascist groups in Massachusetts in the US was even called Boston Free Speech or something Free Speech. Could just be a North American phenomenon, in Quebec there is a three percent group, which seems modeled on the American one, both of which claim to uphold constitutional rights. Not surprised about the feelings about the French Revolution when you have people like Hébert, I guess



Yeah the right has long tried to present the American Revolution as a conservative affair and not a "real" revolution.

In the lead up to the Civil War, many slaveowners denounced Thomas Jefferson precisely because of the radical significance of his doctrines. For instance, John C. Calhoun said in 1848:

>I have attempted to expose,—that all men are born free and equal,—as if those high qualities belonged to man without effort to acquire them, and to all equally alike, regardless of their intellectual or moral condition The attempt to carry into practice this, the most dangerous of all political errors. . . . is the leading cause among those which have placed Europe in its present anarchical condition. . . Nor are we exempt from its disorganizing effects. We now begin to experience the danger of admitting so great an error to have a place in the declaration of our independence. For a long time it lay dormant ; but in the process of time it began to germinate, and produce its poisonous fruits. It had strong hold on the mind of Mr. Jefferson, the author of that document, which caused him to take an utterly false view of the subordinate relation of the black to the white race in the South ; and to hold, in consequence, that the latter, though utterly unqualified to possess liberty, were as fully entitled to both liberty and equality as the former ; and that to deprive them of it was unjust and immoral. To this error, his proposition to exclusive slavery from the territory northwest of the Ohio may be traced,—and to that the ordinance of 1787,—and through it the deep and dangerous agitation which now threatens to ingulf, and will certainly ingulf, if not speedily settled, our political institutions, and involve the country in countless woes.

And George Fitzhugh, one of the most fanatical defenders of slavery (to the extent he thought certain white people were also fit to be slaves), wrote during the Civil War:

>man is not like other gregarious animals, born into society, born a member and subject of government ; but society and government are human institutiPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

File: f35c88b44bfb9f8⋯.jpg (69.06 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, pepe snorts coke 02.jpg)


They are superior to humans at doing production and service tasks. Even as distraction devices they excel at keeping humans hunched over a tiny screen all day. Humans don't even purchase shares in production when it is offered to them.


File: e035c853bbcaa29⋯.png (14.1 KB, 180x255, 12:17, c93e547ff991de0a5538d0c6d6….png)

No, mankind first, robots second.



More like living things first, robots second.

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


Questions about China today and in the past

59 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



What an inspired, intelligent response. Bravissimo, Comrade.


I know you responded on Tibet, but do you have an opinion or any insight into Xinjiang? I don’t see any evidence that there is any kind of concerted effort to actually kill Muslims there (which seems to be the implication of a lot of media around it), and most of the sources about “a bajillion Uyghurs are in concentration camps” go back to state department outlets and stuff like separatist Uyghur media in Turkey, but the Chinese state admitted there are re-education camps and there is video of the heightened security there. It seems like this would just increase tension, so I’m not sure what the logic is or where the policy is coming from.



I haven't studied modern Xinjiang. My reading on it is limited to the 1930s-40s.


I would recommend everyone interested in China or just in general geopolitics to read Jude Woodward's recent book "The US versus China". Lots of detailed information and analysis about the ongoing US-China trade war from a left-wing, more or less pro-Chinese perspective.


Where can I learn about the CPC long-term planning? I know about the two 100-years plans and about the 2050 estimate for reaching the next stage of socialism, but what will come afterwards?

File: d815935d23a912b⋯.jpeg (1.82 MB, 4032x2041, 4032:2041, BF15EA5C-B780-457A-9FBB-7….jpeg)

File: 7b7aff8689314ce⋯.jpeg (1.63 MB, 3452x1922, 1726:961, 53D3028A-BE4E-4302-AF6A-3….jpeg)


Time to post pics, view the shelves of others and likely learn of some new books to read long the way!

I don’t have tons of books and I probably haven’t read up to 1/3rd of these yet, but I plan to get around to all of them eventually

13 posts and 11 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



Why is your copy of Shock Doctrine so thicc?



Lol you collect books you don't read. Either that or they're all library books. No one on the internet in the days of proclamation by tweet can read books these days and you know it.



Just because you have the attention span of a goldfish doesn't mean other people can't read. I don't get why someone would spend well over a hundred dollars on books never to read them or, even dumber, going to the library and checking out books to fill up their bookshelf to show off on /marx/.



I actually recently got rid of a lot of the books in the pics but I have read almost all of them, I either had to buy them for school or they were given to me. No way in hell would I actually pay for a complete set of Emile Zola. I spend maybe an hour every day reading plus another few hours at work listening to audiobooks.

Also I don't use Twitter



1 language Marxist, wouldn't have expected anything less.

File: 1155a848c3c0c81⋯.png (415 KB, 654x702, 109:117, 1155a848c3c0c8188e23d28f08….png)


Mawxism is dangewous!! Nyaaaaa!

1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


>w< don't exploit me pls


I also kind of apologize for this namefigging thing.



is ok fren @iui


wow... nobody seemed to delete this tf



I mean, why should I? It isn't gay porn or something.

File: 760be99a6fcf8a2⋯.jpeg (61.07 KB, 471x704, 471:704, 67E6E53E-5579-461B-91D8-5….jpeg)


Can someone recommend me some ML literature? Essentials?

I am extremely into Che and Fidel if that helps

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



Damn I was so excited. What's the difference between the editions?



The revised edition is... revised. And revision is k00l except when you add "ism" at the end.

But yeah feel free to use that $20 for whatever you want, although I could find some book(s) for you to spend the money on to scan if you want.



Don't really have much else to spend it on. Do you have a txt file of books that you're looking for? If there are any good theory/philosophical works I'd buy a couple of those



It just so happens that two or three days ago I was informed of a book titled "Philosophy and Sociology" someone asked me to scan for them: https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=22922396139&searchurl=tn%3D%2522philosophy%2Band%2Bsociology%2522%26sortby%3D17%26an%3DFrantsov&cm_sp=snippet-_-srp1-_-title1

It's Soviet, so I can put it publicly online when you scan it.




Thank you a lot for this

File: 28cdfc4bc3b393f⋯.jpg (568.87 KB, 1400x1050, 4:3, 1508544229664.jpg)


The enemy of my enemy is my friend the third position and the left must unite against the capitalist right. Capitalists care about nothing but profit they will do anything to make money. They do not care about anyone but themselves but we do we want a better future we want a future and if capitalism prevails then there will be no future. So i am calling all communists Stalinist Maoist or Trotskyist etc, socialists, corpratists syndicalists national-syndicalists distrubutists national-socialists hitlerist rockwellien or Asserist etc juche Duginists and national-Bolshevists to unite under one banner, do not let our differences divide us. Collectivism is the way forward, the way of individualism and selfish greed will only lead us to our doom. So unite i beg of you, for the betterment of the human species and the world as a whole, we can only prevail together.

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


An entire ideology based on memes and sentimentality. Fascism is a feeling. The ultimate feels before reals.



> higher race and lower race

Sorry, with that mindset then 5000 years ago, the Mesopotamians and Egyptians were considering you guys as subhuman cavemen. Are they right? Mankind is social being, and changed according to the level of social development, to reduce man to race is nothing but metaphysics thinking, you think you could subvert people with Marxist ideology by that way of thought? Nonsense.



>Sorry, with that mindset then 5000 years ago, the Mesopotamians and Egyptians were considering you guys as subhuman cavemen.

It’s retarded to waste our time babbling about which race or races were the original standard-bearers of human culture or what was the original human culture. I’m not talking about five thousand years ago, I’m talking about the last several centuries leading up to this very moment. Today the answer is clear: the Aryan is the highest form of the archetype known as man, that being which has blessed us with all technology of note beyond the fundamentals. The Aryan has the potential (and does) illuminate the dark corners of life, solving mysteries long thought unsolvable in the realms of science, exploration and knowledge in general. Through their might the Aryan has spread its living-space far and wide across the globe, pushing out the inferior beings and dominating the remainder and emerging as the master of all things on this Earth besides Nature herself. If, one day, the beauty of the Aryan were to fade from this Earth, there would be stagnation and even regression.

>Mankind is social being, and changed according to the level of social development

Nice tabula rasa bullshit. Reality speaks against this

<b-b-but people change their mode or production so they change completely in my ideology addled mind!

Customs and culture may change, but race will forever remain innate.

Marxism inveighs against the aristocratic principle of nature and relies soley on the dead-weight of the unthinking masses and attempts to destroy the very foundations of human civilization — attacking race, the family, culture, the individual worth of the human personality and erects in its place a thoughtless golem lead from above by a Judeo-oligarchic clique.



Spare me your fucking autistic garbage. I'm not interested in your fucking huckstery. You are a fucking schizo, no different from when your kind comes here to blather about Jewish golems and such. Fascists should be mercilessly slaughtered.


>Marxism inveighs against the aristocratic principle of nature and relies soley on the dead-weight of the unthinking masses and attempts to destroy the very foundations of human civilization — attacking race, the family, culture, the individual worth of the human personality and erects in its place a thoughtless golem lead from above by a Judeo-oligarchic clique.

What absolute fucking wordsalad garbage. Check yourself into a mental hospital.



fucking lol



>a thoughtless golem led from above by a Judeo-oligarchic clique.

There's a whole thread debunking that notion here: https://8ch.net/marx/res/7600.html

From now on fascist arguments can be made in that thread. I'll close any others so as to avoid cluttering up the board.

(Also no posting gore.)

File: 27a0b50ff52d34f⋯.jpg (198.17 KB, 912x606, 152:101, kke.jpg)


Thoughts on the KKE (Communist party of Greece)

Their line is imo one of the best contemporary applications of Marxism-Leninism, so are their beliefs on socialism in the 20th century.

It's also a good thing that they are one of the few communist parties with political representation in Europe.


3 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



The next election will be a landmark, but it's hard to achieve anything notable, because Greece society is mainly petty-bourgeois. Here is some concern of party's supporters (translated by Google), I will only take some notable comments: http://sfyrodrepano.blogspot.com/2019/01/2019.html

> The Captain Gatos said ...

> @ Pr

> whether petty or 'RED' 'is society is to a point in the hand of a KK however, there is a natural phenomenon.

> As for the rates, 4.5% of the second elections of '12 are equal to that of 1993 as the lowest percentage of the KK, and even in 12 was the vote less. From 2004 until the beginning of the 12th the KK was 6 and over. There was a momentum for 4 consecutive elections that was postponed.

> The KKE surely had a world of delusions, but that was too much in his hands. The KKE has already been largely clarified with opportunism after the split, and much more after the 2009 Congress. Theoretically, the edits existed, but for some reason it could not pass it on to the world.

> And it seems that this is a general problem of the KKE this period, that is, while it is in the most correct rotation that has been here for ten years, it can not communicate its positions in the world.

> Also, the fact that it has been a very awesome world in 2012 (however insignificant it may be) was Papariga's unfortunate statement that the KKE does not want to rule. What was theoretically correct but communication was suicide.

> January 16, 2019 - 5:43 pm

In the comment, he explained his concern on the "low resonance" of KKE on the mass base, which I think existed deep down in any communist mind. Also he commented on Papariga statement of "we don't want to rule", which he think is theoretical correct but PR disaster. However, there are some warming comments:

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



Here is the comment which I think explain the key difference of old and new KKE:

> Sechtar the Terrible said ...


>Today's appeal of the KKE must be judged by the current criteria, and I can not define the ceiling of knowing the threshold of "reasonable" rates at a time when the people themselves often arrive at the ballot box without having end up! The sure thing is, as many friends have observed here, that the quality of today's influence is far superior to that of "old-good times". What we can, what the KKE can and must do, of course, is another big chapter, which I do not consider to be exhausted at all but I leave it for space economy reasons.


>I think reasonably, thoughts that might have been in the back of our head before, but that we would have been ashamed of them, that reality would bring us forward.

>That things were not as rosy as they were, for example. the European elections of 2004 and the '09, there were indications. It was the mismatch with the organizational development of the Party, the hiatus of its autonomous mass operation. I remember remarked here that the KKE's broad (but also close ...) influence continued to function as a "other democratic power": When "all democratic forces" were mobilized, the work of the PAME / KKE had 30-40 thousand people, while when calling PAME / KKE on its own, it fell to 5-6 thousand. Similarly, they happened with the massification of the unions. Nowadays, with "pan-turkey" or not, PAME is down and 20 thou. You do not say that, and a little while, when the raiders have set up on the couch and the extra-left-wing villagers have evaporated.

>Let's make a decision, how we are adjusting, or rather, we have to adapt more quickly to the new situation, which had surprise us in '89 -'91. The "rationalization" would have been better to have been pre-celebrated, but "better than ever".

>-------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------

>TPost too long. Click here to view the full text.



Comments on success of Peletedis: http://sfyrodrepano.blogspot.com/2019/02/2019.html

>The kolokotronis said ...

>Terrible and turbulent divorce was the day-long gathering of the People's Congress in Patras. And joy and satisfaction to the people of wages.

>The local media (systemically and dipped in interweaving) went through all the stages of despair: at first, with blurred responses and blurry pictures showing almost nothing, then extinguishing (!) The subject from their first pages in a couple hours, they tried, with great zeal, to "bury" the concentration. There was a storm of angry phone calls in their call centers and a lot of critical comments under their articles, to such an extent that they were forced today to slam their stern and show up part of the truth. The factions of the other factions are all day disappearing from the hangouts.

>Unjust their effort! All Patras today discusses (with obvious surprise) the incredible, quantitative and qualitative, yesterday concert!

>Our anxieties about whether we can fill the 2,000-seat stadium of the ORF (see, it was the first event and psychologically would create a climate) lasted only a few minutes. Where did all this world come from? Young and old, men and >women, droned faces of laborers and grasped doctors, chickens students and hefty farmers. Everybody flock to the densely populated neighborhood of Agios Dionysios, where the stadium is located. What the hell! Where were all these found? (to be continued)

>February 7, 2019 - 7:40 pm


>At around 6.20 the image of the area was as follows:

>all the field positions (2,000) were full, there was no seat or for sample, many even sat on the steps. The playing area was pie (at least 600 people), another could not get in. In a large adjoining room, something like a vestibule, there was >a TV set and there were 300 people (mostly smokers, Post too long. Click here to view the full text.



>What do you think the next steps for the KKE should be? How do they advantage of that legitimacy moving forward?

I think the conditions is not really ripe yet, we must continue the "somewhat not-taking-power" struggle from below, because of the following reasons:

1. Petty bourgeois consciousness is till going strong (the recent rise of XA - Golden Dawn) despite the unemployment and bankruptcy of middle class. This is natural, because they cannot change overnight.

2. World condition is not good enough, NATO and US is still reign in Europe, any attempt to go outside of the system would be punished heavily

In my thinking, the next step of KKE would be followed:

1. Enforcing their leading role on working class by PAME. This process in my opinion was and still progressing nicely, the GSEE (state controlled union) now need to resort to dirty tricks (fake votes, etc.) in order to stop PAME.

2. Not losing mass support (keeping the voting rate stable), at the best case increase it. Neutralise the petty-bourgeois by spreading our key points on the state, politics, economics. We don't need them to voting or following us for now, without understanding what is communism, instead it would be better to have them agree with our viewpoints. In the moment of revolution, this would be beneficial because they would not side with the capitalists to stop us.

3. Educate the youth, because they are like a blank slate, without preconception. By the rapid proletarianisation of society, we can expect good result, and indeed it has happen. KNE (KKE youth movement) is consistent 2nd place in university election, with the decline of SYZIRA, I think this process would be speeded up.

My formula for success would be: Revolution = Strong working class + Weak capitalist state + Inactivity of middle class. Capitalist state (EU + NATO) is still going strong (but they would be weaken) and the middle class is still hostile to us (but it will be lessen each year). KKE has the first factor right already.



> On a more superficial point, KKE is one of the last major parties in Europe that has not only stuck to proper class politics, but kept the visual stuff, the communist aesthetic, the communist fashion, whatever you want to call it. They didn't abandon it for the fucking awful eurocommunist salmon which makes me wanna gouge my eyes out. Their propaganda is always impressive, and out of all the left-wing propaganda and aesthetic I've seen, theirs is always the stuff that sticks out most in my mind.

It's not superficial. Dialectical philosophy has always understand that when form and content are in agreement with each other, the power would be amplified. The form of eurocommunist aesthetic is the expression of their petty-bourgeois world outlook, while the old-style hardcore propaganda of KKE is the expression of their proletarian nature.

File: 5aefa89dd52e8f1⋯.jpeg (151.24 KB, 1200x1109, 1200:1109, 7E557176-932C-42D3-938A-8….jpeg)


old thread: >>>/marx/10096

A continuation of the thread for general questions on socialism, history, Marxist positions of X Y Z, etc. In a break with tradition I am making the thread. If there ends up being a duplicate or you want your own thread for whatever reason, feel free to delete this

746 posts and 112 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


How accurate is this take on Hungary, over at leftypol: https://8ch.net/leftypol/res/2835129.html#2835370



Barre took power in a coup and proclaimed his adherence to "scientific socialism" (he avoided using the term Marxism-Leninism.) Progressive reforms were carried out with Soviet support.

However, in 1977 Somalia invaded the Ogaden region of Ethiopia in order to obtain the ambition of a "Greater Somalia." This would have led to the demise of the Derg government in Ethiopia, which was further to the left than Barre. The Organisation of African Unity also denounced the invasion.

Castro tried to mediate between Ethiopia and Somalia, but Barre refused to agree to anything short of recognizing his blatant aggression as legitimate. Thus the USSR and Cuba sent troops to repel the Somali troops. Barre did a 180 in his foreign policy, denouncing the Soviets and becoming a US ally. The progress made since the coup was halted.

Barre and many other Somali army officials had been trained in the Soviet Union, hence where they got their left-wing ideas. They were more nationalists than socialists (and despite the moniker of "scientific socialism," Barre tried to infuse his conception of socialism with Islam.)

During the early-mid 70s the USSR considered Somalia as an example of a socialist-oriented state: not socialist, but beginning the road towards it. Obviously that changed after the Ogaden War, since as I said Barre turned to the right.

>Why did it collapse in the end?

The government became increasingly corrupt and Barre relied more and more on his own clan to stay in power, which led to his government's demise and Somalia thrown into anarchy.


Some of what he says is correct, and the Hungarian Communists themselves acknowledged problems of dogmatism and lowered living standards as major factors leading to the counter-revolutionary uprising. For a good read on the subject see: Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at



Very interesting, thank you.

When would you say the cold war started, if that's a definable date at all, and what do you think the overall causes were? Soviet-Allied relations seemed to be very high during WW2, of course noting that it was an alliance of convenience, nonetheless, the friendship seemed at least somewhat genuine, what with Soviet publicity tours in the U.S. and so on. Stalin even conceded on Greece for geopolitical reasons. Why did it have to come to almost nuclear war at times? Surely the Soviets had no realistic plans of militarily invading the west unprovoked? Was there any particular event that sparked the "coldness", a provocation from either side perhaps? Or was it something that happened naturally now that the alliance of convenience was no longer necessary? Or was it just motivated by western fear of Soviet strength and legitimacy threatening the status quo in the west?



>When would you say the cold war started, if that's a definable date at all

Well it obviously was never a formal "war," so it's a bit academic to determine when it actually started. One date generally accepted is Churchill's Fulton, MO speech on March 5, 1946 where he says "an iron curtain has descended across" Europe.

>what do you think the overall causes were

There's a whole book on the subject I scanned a while back: https://archive.org/details/WeCanBeFriends

Basically as you note the USSR's foreign policy was defensive. American and British imperialism instead portrayed it as offensive.

>Was there any particular event that sparked the "coldness", a provocation from either side perhaps?

The Americans claimed "Stalin violated Yalta." The Soviets argued that Hiroshima and Nagasaki was meant as a warning to the USSR and a way of the US "getting to Japan first" (before the Red Army did.) The Americans claimed that Browder's removal as CPUSA leader was because Stalin didn't want to continue wartime cooperation. Can go on and on about the various incidents in 1945-46 that are seen as "causing" the Cold War or at least contributing to its existence.

At the end of the day it boils down to what you said, "western fear of Soviet strength and legitimacy threatening the status quo in the west." The spread of socialism threatened capitalism.


what do you know about the claim that the Soviet Union brutally killed deserters in the war?

File: 7cf22449ffed244⋯.jpeg (534.15 KB, 1024x680, 128:85, 2F17844F-7FA3-43B7-BBE7-A….jpeg)


Interested in the DPRK and Juche? A fan of /leftypol/‘s DPRK general? /jucheidea/ is the board for you. This board was just created and is in its early stages of development, but the groundwork has been laid. Please check it out and help it get some traffic if you’re interested


7 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



I don't even remember, but like only one thread can be created per hour. That alone goes a good deal toward preventing the board from getting wiped out.

>I wish traditional forums were more alive

You can always go on my forum (eregime.org), which has some leftist discussions for registered users plus two active Discords (one public, one mostly consisting of leftists.)

It isn't a replacement for /marx/, and it's mostly used to run forum games, but still.


As a note, while we're on the subject, you can actually find a whole bunch of writings by the three Kims here: http://www.korean-books.com.kp/en/search/?page=work-leader1

Post last edited at




Thanks, Ismail! The thread creation limit per hour sounds like a good idea. I’ll also have to go check out your forum



>I wish traditional forums were more alive

Shamelessly gonna plug https://leftist.site



How much information is collected?

Delete Post [ ]
Previous [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
| Catalog | Nerve Center | Cancer
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / baaa / choroy / dempart / jenny / leo / polder / vg / vietnam ]