[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / b2 / choroy / cyoa / dempart / freeb / nara / red / vichan ]

/marx/ - Marxism

It makes you smart

Catalog   Archive

Winner of the 83rd Attention-Hungry Games
/strek/ - Remove Hasperat

May 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

101 posts and 37 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
Post last edited at



>So if you want to call him a dictator you can, at least after the Great Patriotic War.

If Stalin could do as he pleased after WW2, how was power in the hands of the workers?

File: 9f707a72131a325⋯.jpg (318.25 KB, 1450x2000, 29:40, Soviet Russia Today Novemb….jpg)


Old thread: https://8ch.net/marx/res/14441.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.

55 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
Post last edited at


File: 367ee8d11092276⋯.jpg (29.07 KB, 640x480, 4:3, Sad pepe.jpg)

There is so much I want to learn

There is so much I want to ask



Ask away.


Where does Marx provide his most coherent and refined definition of Communism?



Part I of his Critique of the Gotha Programme: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

He divides communism into a "first phase" (i.e. socialism) and a "higher phase" (i.e. communism "proper," in which distribution is based on "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.")

Post last edited at


How can the definition of socialism (worker ownership of the means of production) be reconciled with the vanguard party? Realistically, it seems the party was the one making decisions, whereas actual soviets existed for just a while.

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.

391 posts and 116 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
Post last edited at


File: 2e20e90931b7fa0⋯.jpg (258.98 KB, 400x570, 40:57, Skvorcov-Stepanov Ivan.jpg)



>This list jews as non jewish.

Like who? The only other person listed in the cabinet who could be considered Jewish was Lenin, because one of his grandparents was a Jew. And even then according to one poster >>12912 he wouldn't be considered a Jew in Nazi law. Not to mention Lenin himself was apparently unaware one of his grandfathers was a Jew.

>Listing this guy [Ivan Skvortsov-Stepanov] as non jew is laughable

Why? He was born to a Russian family and in the 1890s worked as a teacher (a position prohibited to Jews.) There was nothing Jewish about him and I can find no source claiming he was a Jew.

>And it only shows 2 of the what 7 parties, one of which being a all jewish party

What "parties" are you talking about? The image, as far as I can see, makes no mention of any besides the Bolsheviks.

Post last edited at


File: ab39cb333a21263⋯.png (224.25 KB, 500x373, 500:373, actually-think-hitler-was-….png)


B-b-but Mr. Ford, you do all those things too



Hitler also had blacks and muslims in his army you forgot that part too.



On the other hand, Blacks and Muslims were more than a bit different from Jews in terms of Nazi ideology. Many Albanians for instance were considered "Aryans," and Hitler's own knowledge of them was confined to the stereotype of brave mountain warriors (which in reality only applied to parts of northern Albania.)

Blacks in Nazi Germany were treated badly as "inferiors" and subject to stuff like sterilization, though this didn't preclude the Nazis from using Blacks in a limited way during WWII: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6f2q0s/how_did_the_nazishitler_feel_towards_people_of/diexd2h/

In regard to the post you're quoting, it is obvious that Muslim and/or Black reactionaries weren't responsible for helping contribute to the world outlook of Neo-Nazis as some reactionary Jewish thinkers were. Not to mention it clearly conflicts with their narrative that "the Jews" are a homogeneous entity which promotes "degenerate," "leftist" ideologies. It shows that other factors need to be looked at, namely class.

Also, we've see in this thread how some anti-Semites view the presence of Jews anywhere working for a government as "proof" that they're secretly in control of things (e.g. the case of Sidney Rittenberg mentioned earlier in this thread.) One can use similar "logic" to claim Hitler was remote controlled by Jews because his chauffeur and longtime friend (Emil Maurice) had Jewish ancestry. I think that's the argument the poster you're quoting was making.

Post last edited at

File: 978867fd5294f77⋯.jpg (10.05 KB, 369x136, 369:136, race_matters.jpg)

File: 90f2cb7fc3cb133⋯.gif (240.93 KB, 750x684, 125:114, wetenschappelijk-racisme.gif)

File: c57e483e55b380f⋯.jpg (66.11 KB, 536x274, 268:137, 010103_mn_professor_abolis….jpg)


What do you guys think about race realism? Can a marxist be a race realist?

And if you are opponent of "race realism" what theory do you support?

Boasian theory:

>Biological (genetic) races exist, but this only affects areas that are not politically sensitive, such as skin color. Most importantly, race is not connected with any politically sensitive mental characteristic.


critical race theory:

>Biological (genetic) races do not exist, but socially constructed races do.

Also what do you think about Noel Ignatiev and T.W. Allen and theories and concept of "whiteness"? Do you agree that we should "abolish white race"?


>Biological (genetic) races exist, but this only affects areas that are not politically sensitive, such as skin color. Most importantly, race is not connected with any politically sensitive mental characteristic.

Yep. Though is this not a realist's view on race?


Are there any marxist critiques of Noel Ignatiev and Theodore Allen?



There are only two main races of modern humankind, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The white rich kids are not rich because of his whiteness, but because he is the son of a rich bourgeoisie. End of story


"races" have been debunked as a concepts through the advances made in population genetics for years now. only uneducated fascists on the internet take this bullshit seriously


File: d5d1fd1f9b67543⋯.jpg (93.99 KB, 640x640, 1:1, black chad.jpg)


>how do you do fellow kik--marxists? don't you agree that nigg--non-whites are inferior to the true aryan masterrace? not /pol/ btw

begone /pol/yp. take your racist pretext elsewhere.

File: 2f30498ec581948⋯.png (56.37 KB, 358x195, 358:195, enverhoxhaface.png)


Enver Hoxha's face at the memorial to Stalin in Albania


sad nigaa moments

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


Ask questions about Albania and/or Enver Hoxha here.

303 posts and 86 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



In the 40s-50s there was a degree of repression under Ranković (who was in charge of Yugoslavia's security forces until Tito removed him in the 60s), including efforts to encourage Kosovar Albanians to identify as "Turks" and emigrate to Turkey. This was in part because pro-partisan sentiment had been relatively weak in Kosovo whereas reactionary nationalist sentiment was widespread.

However, from the late 60s onward conditions became much better for Albanians in Kosovo, to the extent that textbooks from Albania were legally imported to educate Kosovar Albanian students.

However, Kosovo remained the poorest region in Yugoslavia, which created discontent even though the Yugoslav authorities did investment a lot in the province. Albanian nationalists organized protests in 1981 which inflamed tensions between Albanians and Serbs, and during the rest of the decade relations between these two peoples steadily deteriorated as the former sought to increase the existing Albanian majority by pressuring Serbs to leave.

From the Serbian viewpoint, Kosovo already had excessive autonomy from 1974 onward, to the extent that Serbia largely lacked control over the security of the province, not even being able to send security forces in during the 1981 protests.

The Serb minority had more to worry about in Kosovo during the 80s-90s than the Albanian majority did, and the proposal for Kosovo to become a constituent republic of Yugoslavia (let alone join Albania) would have made the Serbs' positions still worse in a region they have historically considered the heartland of the Serbian nation.


how do most Albanians feel about socialist times nowadays? how did they feel in the 80s/90s?



Nostalgia for the socialist era in Albania isn't entirely absent, but it's much less common than nostalgic sentiments in the former GDR, Yugoslavia and USSR. A big reason for this is because Albanians associate the Hoxha years with a highly repressive atmosphere and the sense that he isolated the country and shot its economic progress in the foot after 1978 by emphasizing self-reliance.

It wasn't exactly possible to poll people during the 80s, but for what it's worth Ramiz Alia stated in interviews that when news came of Ceaușescu being overthrown and executed, he felt that this was a sign that things had to change in Albania.



>t's much less common than nostalgic sentiments in the former GDR

i thought ostalgie isn't that big, around %56 or something?



As far as I know Ostalgie is fairly significant in the former GDR, to the extent some businesses specifically cater to it by operating "GDR-themed" hotels or selling imitations of GDR-era products.

By comparison with that, nostalgia in Albania is paltry.

File: 2e13a5f8a9ee427⋯.jpg (179.13 KB, 760x1112, 95:139, It is Lenin.jpg)


Old thread: https://8ch.net/marx/res/10645.html

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

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



No. The Baltics were the wealthiest region in the USSR; cultural works and institutions in Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian became more numerous under the Soviets.

Claiming that the Soviets destroyed infrastructure makes no sense. What does that even refer to? The only infrastructure that got destroyed was during the Great Patriotic War when the Red Army and Nazi army fought over Lithuania (as they fought over all other areas seized by the Nazis.) After the war ended Lithuania underwent the same rapid reconstruction as the other affected republics.

To quote from Phillip Bonosky's "Devils in Amber: The Baltics," pp. 139-142:

>[Lithuanian guides] would quote you figures before and after that never failed to impress you, the visitor, no matter how sophisticated you were nor how little you cared about factories breaking records making washing machines. By 1989, Lithuania was producing 88 times more industrial goods than in 1940—just before the war. It brought into existence a system that was tooled to further its settled industrial direction and spoke of a future in which it seemed that the whole nation would be cybernetically connected up and run as if by itself!

>They spoke of mills and factories that had never existed in Lithuania before. But they also pointed to vast housing complexes which also had risen from barren ground as if by a miracle and by which they were hoping to meet the promise of supplying every citizen of the Republic with his own flat by the year 2000. Such huge residential production, it must be remembered, from a capitalist point of view, is a total loss. There is no profit in low-cost housing! Nor in other social constructions meant solely for the pleasure and health of the people and not of the banks—well-appointed sanitoria, special resorts for special kinds of illnesses, particularly of children, modern schools, etc. All this, from an investor's point of view, is loss—throwing money away.

>That must always be kept in mind when making comparisons between the presPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at


Why did Stalin land grab and expand so fast post war (while also demanding too much like military access for Japan and Turkish strait)? This pretty much resulted in diplomatic isolation and Cold War.



>eventually began to consume as much electricity as did France and more than Italy.

Is such think even possible?


>Soviet Union authorities and leaders officially condemned nationalism and proclaimed internationalism, including the right of nations and peoples to self-determination.[1][2] However, in practice they conducted complete opposite policies including but not limited to; systematic large-scale cleansing of ethnic minorities, political repression and various forms of ethnic and social discrimination, including state-enforced antisemitism and Polonophobia.





What "land grabs" are you talking about? Soviet foreign policy in the immediate post-WWII period was about ensuring that the threat of a third world war against the USSR would not be carried out, and that the Soviets could rebuild in peace. The Turkish strait situation, for instance, was based on reversing a decision inimical to the security of the USSR.


"Polonophobia" and the deportation of certain small nationalities were associated with certain years of the Stalin period, not the situation under Lenin or Stalin's successors. Likewise the situation for Jews in the USSR reached its worst point in Stalin's last years, after a widespread development of Yiddish culture in the 1920s-30s (i.e. in Stalin's earlier years), and with the situation improving from the lows of the 1948-53 period after Stalin's death.

So to take isolated incidents like that, often based on particular policies associated with Stalin, and apply it to the USSR's entire history is nonsense. It also doesn't change the fact that, for instance, while Yiddish culture was suppressed in the late 40s due to fears of Zionist infiltration, anti-Semitism was still against the law and people were still punished for it.

Post last edited at

File: 0b4da65c7062a7a⋯.jpg (6.94 KB, 141x187, 141:187, mao z.jpg)


I want to start a new communist political party in my country because all our communist parties are shit.

I consider myself a Marxist-Leninist and a Maoist and so do my comrades who I'm setting it up with and we want to try to become a large party (unlikely but a goal nevertheless).

However, in my country (thanks to Cold War propaganda) Stalin and Mao are seen as equal to Hitler and so by branding our party as Marxist-Leninist or Maoist we might not be able to get much support from the people. So, my question is:

Should Western Communist Parties brand themselves as regular Marxists or Leninists and defend Stalin/Mao behind closed doors in order to gather ourselves more support from the people, or should we openly defend Stalin/Mao's legacy and try to change people's minds on them?


Marxism-Leninism is itself seen as little different from fascism by large swathes of the population. If you're worried about having controversial views, you shouldn't form a communist organization.

As Marx and Engels noted, "Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims." Hiding your views will only confuse people and make you appear deceitful.


what country comrade?



Always started with a studying group of trusted people. Do not preach communism to ordinary people without knowing their viewpoint beforehand. Influence people around you with historical materialist analysis of current political events and class-based analysis, try to stay "neutral and objective", then invite people who have pro-worker oriented.

But also you shouldn't lie about your true views. Propaganda should be conducted with a slow and careful approach, but without compromising Marxist doctrine.


You should not conceal that you guys are communists, but to the ordinary people in Western Europe, whatever Stalin did or what the Cultural Revolution was is basically irrelevant one way or the other. Study the demands of the people in your country, and apply diamat to define a political line that links them to socialism. That's what mass line is, after all.

What country are you from?


OP here. I actually hate Stalin and Mao to the bone lol just for the record. I just posted this because I wanted to see how you guys would respond to a question like this.

File: 497658cf6eb0290⋯.jpg (4.42 KB, 277x182, 277:182, lenin.jpg)


"there has been no greater bolshevik than trotsky"

and you guys STILL think Lenin wasnt pro-permanent revolution lloloolololololl.

18 posts omitted. Click reply to view.





If we're going to be quote mining here, how can you refute the mountain of Lenin quotes provided in the "Socialism in One Country" appendix of Trotsky's HotRR? The number of quotes is frankly excessive but it leaves no doubt that Lenin believed that revolution in the industrial west was necessary to achieve socialism.


Here are two quotes I've picked out of dozens. First is on the Brest Litovsk treaty debate you mentioned, recorded around the same time:

>Stalin, to be sure, introduced a special note into the debate. He based the necessity of signing a separate peace upon the fact that: “There is no revolutionary movement in the west, there are no facts, there is only a potentiality, and we can’t figure on potentialities.” Although still far from the theory of socialism in a separate country, he nevertheless clearly revealed in these words his organic distrust of the international movement. “We cannot figure on potentialities.” Lenin immediately drew aside “in certain parts” from this Stalinist support. “It is true that the revolution in the west has not yet begun,” he said. “However, if in view of this we should change our tactics, then we should be traitors to international socialism.” If he, Lenin, favoured an immediate separate peace, it was not because he did not believe in the revolutionary movement in the west, and still less because he believed in the viability of an isolated Russian revolution: “It is important for us to hold out until the coming of a general socialist revolution, and we can achieve this only by signing the peace.” The meaning of the Brest capitulation was summed up for Lenin in the words “breathing spell.”

Second is from lPost too long. Click here to view the full text.



Adding to my post above: I read the full article "On Cooperation" you cited and Lenin himself contradicts the point you were trying to make on the need for international revolution:

>Now we are entitled to say that for us the mere growth of cooperation (with the “slight” exception mentioned above) is identical with the growth of socialism, and at the same time we have to admit that there has been a radical modification in our whole outlook on socialism. The radical modification is this; formerly we placed, and had to place, the main emphasis on the political struggle, on revolution, on winning political power, etc. Now the emphasis is changing and shifting to peaceful, organizational, “cultural” work. I should say that emphasis is shifting to educational work, were it not for our international relations, were it not for the fact that we have to fight for our position on a worldscale.




The first quote you give isn't relevant (as Trotsky admits, it's "still far from the theory of socialism in a separate country") and is more an attempt to make Stalin look bad. No one doubts that Brest-Litovsk constituted a "breathing spell" and that the Bolsheviks in the first few years after the October Revolution were anticipating the triumph of revolutionary movements in the West.

As for the second quote, Lenin is anticipating the development of a new revolutionary situation emerging in Western Europe, and that at present the USSR's task is to "display extreme caution so as to preserve our workers’ government and to retain our small and very small peasantry under its leadership and authority. We have the advantage that the whole world is now passing to a movement that must give rise to a world socialist revolution."

At the time Lenin was dictating these words, the USSR was not yet in a position to go over to the building of socialism, given it was still recovering from years of war. Hence why Lenin is thinking in terms of the NEP and proposes (in the same article) "to use every saving we make to develop our large-scale machine industry, to develop electrification, the hydraulic extraction of peat, to complete the Volkhov Power Project, etc. In this, and in this alone, lies our hope."

However, as Lenin said a year earlier, "Socialism is no longer a matter of the distant future. . . Permit me to conclude by expressing confidence that difficult as this task [of carrying out the NEP] may be, new as it may be compared with our previous task, and numerous as the difficulties may be that it entails, we shall all—not in a day, but in a few years—all of us together fulfil it whatever the cost, so that NEP Russia will become socialist Russia."

As early as 1915 Lenin was arguing that "the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting tPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at




That's a lot of text to try to debunk piece-by-piece. I already addressed two examples from it in the post above yours: >>15755

File: c965813ce552c83⋯.png (752.12 KB, 1039x614, 1039:614, ripstalin2.png)


Are there any good books written by communists on world war two from a pro-soviet perspective?

1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


based and basedpilled


While on this topic, Ismail, is it true the Germans committed crimes against humanity during the invasion of the Soviet Union?



I'd be surprised if they didn't, given the well-documented brutality they exhibited in territories occupied by them.

I recently quoted Szymanski's "Class Struggle in Socialist Poland" elsewhere, pages 19-20 briefly discussing the Nazi occupation period:

>The Nazis considered the Poles an inferior race (more or less equivalent to Africans) suited only for simple manual labor and incapable of developing culture. Their occupation policy was implemented according to their racial principles. In the words of the German governor-general, Hans Frank, "Poland shall be treated as a colony; the Poles shall be the slaves of the Greater German World Empire". The German design had Poland set to become an agricultural colony, with all its existing industrial plant moved to Germany.

>The Germans closed all universities and secondary schools in Poland. Only primary and low-grade vocational schools were permitted. Governor-General Frank decreed, "The Poles should be given only such possibilities of education as will prove the hopelessness of their national existence. . . No Pole can occupy a higher post than that of foreman, no Pole will be allowed to receive a higher education in State Schools". In some areas even primary schools were closed for long periods of time. History, geography, and other humanistic subjects were forbidden. All children had to go to work at age 12. Middle-class Poles were displaced from the better neighborhoods, allowed to take only what they could carry (they were replaced with Germans). Poles were excluded from most parks and cafes, with the best cars on trains and the seats on street-cars reserved exclusively for Germans. . . .

>A total of about 3.5 million Jews and 3 million other Poles were killed.

>Buildings and monuments were systematically destroyed. Polish-language books were ground up and sent to paper mills. Entire libraries and archives were destroyed. Concert recordings and precious artifacts were smashed. The vast majority of Polish libraries, archives, Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at



>On WWII specifically:

>* https://archive.org/details/SecretsofWWII

>* https://archive.org/details/RoadtoGreatVictory

What are the contents of these books and are they pro-soviet?



The first book is focused on refuting anti-Soviet claims relating to WWII as well as showing the machinations of some Allied statesmen during the war who, for instance, were open to a separate peace with a post-Hitler Nazi Germany so as to work with it against the Soviets.

The second book is an examination of Soviet diplomacy during the war.

Both authors were Soviet historians and their books were published in the USSR in 1971 and 1985, so yeah they're pro-Soviet.

File: ecce722a361b9e6⋯.jpg (101.61 KB, 726x481, 726:481, 7657175373.jpg)


I have just started reading Kapital and this is the first question that arose for me about the labour theory of value: how does tit account for the exact same thing costing different prices even though they have the same amount of labour put in to the? So for instance, if a bottled water company made 2 batches of their product and shipped them over the same distance, but ones destination was Europe and the others was an impoverished country in Africa, the latter one would cost noticeably more than the first. Of course, this is because water is rarer in Africa than in Europe, but how does labour theory of value explain this difference? Is it because the batch of bottled water becomes like the locally produced one (which has more labour put in to it)? If so, what about a smaller situation where the difference in price exists in a smaller and the same area? So for instance ice cream kiosk will sell its good for more if it is closer to the beach (where people would be willing to pay more) than if it was in the centre of the town that is right next to the same beach.

PS Since I have a limited time for reading, I only read the first part of the chapter on the labour theory of value, so I'm sorry if this is explained later in the book.

4 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



Reply to wrong post?






i wanted to write: yes



>the labour theory of value: how does tit account for the exact same thing costing different prices even though they have the same amount of labour put in to the?

Because value is not the same as price. Price in market capitalism is set by people, based on costs (to make a profit) and prices of similar/same commodities, it has nothing to do with the commodity's actual value. The value of the commodity is an intrinsic property, determined by the amount of labour that has been put to convert raw materials from the Earth into the finished product.

Marx never says LTV can be used to determine the value of a single commodity. You can't pick up a book and say "This book's value is ___ labours." because that is impossible to quantify. Marx envisioned that the LTV be used to determine an average by taking the total produced in society and then divided by the amount of labour done. This gives us an average for human labour power.

If a car company produced 10,000 cars in a year, and the total hours clocked in at the company are 1,000,000 for that year, that would mean that one hour of a car company worker produces 0.01 car, or 1% of a car. Then this number can be used to determine how much of society's product the worker is entitled to receive, if you subscribe to that sort of thing.


File: 14df0a180a2ceb2⋯.png (27.12 KB, 700x620, 35:31, SupplyAndDemand Kopie[1].png)


This is the answer you're looking for, OP.

When we talk about one same and homogeneous commodity (a same bottle of water in this case) this differences in prices tend to be cancelled by market competition: just supply and demand interaction.

Marx admits this market dynamic that Adam Smith had already showed. The thing is, when equilibrium between supply and demand is finally reached, relative prices between commodities still differ. Even in equilibrium, a bottle of water is cheaper than a car. How do you account for this differences? Labor theory of value tries to explain these differences in relative prices, in value, once equilibrium is reached. It could be said that it tries to explain "long-term prices". Neoclassical economic doesn't explain these differences, it only tries tells you price is determined by supply and demand. But think of it in terms of the supply-demand diagram.

If price is higher than p*, demand will be low in relative terms to the supply, and supply will be high in the same way. In p1 > p*, producers will be attracted by this high price and will increase the supply. In doing so, they will lower the price, so demand will start flowing. The process will end when demand equals supply. That's the market clearing dynamic explained in basic courses. But, what determines the position of the curves in the space? Why do demand and supply intersect exactly at (q*, p*) and not at any other point in the space? This is what neoclassical economics doesn't explain and LTV does.

File: 977452305118bf8⋯.jpg (228.85 KB, 621x784, 621:784, William Foster.jpg)


Old thread: https://8ch.net/marx/res/13097.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.

746 posts and 43 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



1. What did the Libyan communists think of this system?

2. Did Marxist parties oppose Qaddafi?



To answer both questions, Libyan communists were persecuted under Gaddafi (as were Libyan Ba'athists and other groups.)

I don't know what they thought of Gaddafi's Jamahiriya system, presumably they saw it as inferior to the system that existed in the USSR and other socialist countries. I'd also assume their attitude toward Gaddafi was similar to that of the Iraqi Communist Party towards Saddam: denounced his repressive activities but at the same time opposed imperialist intrigues against the country.



Did the Soviets support his endeavors?

Any recommended readings on him? He seems like an interesting figure.



The Soviets thought Libya's practice of arming practically any group that asked for arms was harmful, as well as his tendency to troll the United States like he did here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fV4CVTIe9kE

However, Libya was an important geopolitical ally of the USSR. "The first Libyan–Soviet trade agreement was signed in 1974, and trade between the two grew steadily thereafter. Two-way trade increased ninefold from 1977 to 1982, with Libya becoming the USSR’s largest Arab trading partner in the latter half of this period. Military equipment, including SCUD surface-to-surface missiles and the latest Mig 25 aircraft and T-72 tanks, accounted for a considerable portion of Soviet sales to Libya. In the decade following the 1973 [Arab-Israeli] war, Libya received nearly 3,000 tanks, nearly 2,000 other armored fighting vehicles, and nearly 400 combat aircraft from the Soviet Union." (Tareq Ismael, The Communist Movement in the Arab World, p. 75)

When Gaddafi visited the USSR in 1981, Brezhnev said: "Our states differ from each other in many ways. There are also differences of an ideological order between us. But this does not prevent us from being good comrades and brothers in arms in the struggle for the rights and freedom of peoples, against imperialist oppression and aggression and for lasting and just peace and social progress."

"Libya: The Struggle for Survival" by Geoff Simons is a decent intro, published in the 90s: https://b-ok.cc/book/2577582/e38e72

Post last edited at


File: 4f80277c9eec69b⋯.png (135.74 KB, 860x1167, 860:1167, Screenshot_2019-07-12 List….png)


If Libya got all this weaponry, then why was it so bad in war?

File: 5ab286a70f262da⋯.jpg (10.23 KB, 255x206, 255:206, e200b2775ea85989e46fdbbcaf….jpg)


I have been stuck between Anarcho Communism and Marxism Leninism for a while because I think both offer great contributions to revolutionary thought, and I was wondering how this board feels about contributions from anarchists like Kropotkin as far as mutual aid, and if you have seen anarchopacs video on means and ends, which basically says a more ML style revolution won't produce people who are equipped to live in a classless stateless society because they are perpetuating the state structure. Hope this thread hasn't been made before cause I'm new, but basically thoughts on Anarchism? Thoughts on the Bread Book? I'm aware of the historically less impressive defense of the revolution in regards to Anarchist experiments.

8 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



Another Marxist critique of the anarchist worldview is Plekhanov's "Anarchism and Socialism": https://books.google.com/books?id=tHZLAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false




Is "petty-bourg" just an other way of saying "things I don't like"?


Few days late, but I find this to be a decent read when talking about anarchism and Marxism, given that it's an example of Marx directly addressing Bakunin's criticisms in Statism and Anarchy:




another anon

Petty bourgeois is a term for describing the non-scientific ideologies which had developed among the sections of the petty bourgeois elements that denies the need for the proletarian leadership and it's highest form of organizing aka the Communist Party.



File: 0283e61c609a7ef⋯.png (1.44 MB, 1080x1021, 1080:1021, ozjgd7wsaxt11.png)


There are not marxist ethics

What ethical system is the most compatible with marxism?

I just want some guidance about human interactions.


For what it's worth, there is a book titled "Workers' Politics: The Ethics of Socialism" by William Ash, seeking to explain the relationship between Marxism and ethics.

Edit: There's also "Marxist Ethics: A Short Exposition" by Willis Truitt.

Post last edited at


ethics is a spook



essentially this >>15372, OP


>socialism is ethical

This doesn’t make the common man a socialist

>ethics is a spook

This destroys the common man.

Or rather gets him to destroy all men.

Marxism doesn’t have any serious ethics. It’s a shallow set of ideas in the moral department. It should be incorporated into something else because of its penetrating critiques of economics.


File: c0b60ab0e1243c8⋯.png (6.39 KB, 255x177, 85:59, fc7b28b1aa075e1176d8546169….png)


>common man

File: e62716987560a0b⋯.jpg (260.78 KB, 971x1302, 971:1302, lmfao.jpg)


>"mixed-economy" capitalism

>creates surplus to the point that tens of millions of people can voluntarily choose not to work

>idealized communism

>surplus is "binned"

>apparently volunteer(?) "labor ministry" micromanaging hundreds of millions of workers, their salaries and the "person years" costs of goods and services

How does this work in practice?

Also, what makes it morally reprehensible that an executive makes the equivalent of $100-$200 per employee at their large scale operation but it is righteous that the government takes tens of thousands of dollars from that same employee through income tax and nearly as much from the employing company itself for having employed that same employee to begin with through payroll tax?


You know you can ask Cockshott himself, right?

He answers comments about his videos.



>>creates surplus to the point that tens of millions of people can voluntarily choose not to work

Do we live in the same world? Most people who don't work don't do it voluntary.

Honestly it's also kinda obvious you didn't read his books. His youtube videos are just short "introduction" videos. If you want him to go in depth go to his blogspot or read his books.

>but it is righteous that the government takes tens of thousands of dollars from that same employee through income tax and nearly as much from the employing company itself for having employed that same employee to begin with through payroll tax?

Probably because it funds things like healthcare and roads through those things. It isn't like they go to private pockets of the "employers". That didn't even happen as much in the SU as it happens in capitalist nations.



>>surplus is "binned"

Is that in the top right corner a photo of yourself? A sovereign state issues its own currency, another bill for ten units of its currency or another billion ten-unit bills cost nothing to make, they arent' made of gold. Investments are made by just printing currency. Doing that without limit is very inflationary, that's the main reason you have taxes. Tax "income" for the state goes straight into the shredder. Works likewise with electronic accounts. The socialist state operates at full employment and fully utilizes its capacity, so if you don't delete that "surplus" from taxes, you just have corresponding inflation.


File: 30be9504cecce2a⋯.jpeg (41.8 KB, 640x163, 640:163, DCCC0B9B-8FCB-46F9-8417-A….jpeg)

File: 0787facfc7df406⋯.jpeg (428.03 KB, 1346x1381, 1346:1381, D3BA1BF9-CD9A-4FAA-BD1C-1….jpeg)

File: 0366c80e20d93e8⋯.png (142.54 KB, 1685x1295, 337:259, 46084F68-2071-46F5-A0D6-0B….png)

File: 1b42a3fa19eb7f5⋯.png (86.3 KB, 2169x1080, 241:120, 003477F2-AC11-4FF2-9C09-DB….png)



You know that income tax in the US is a relatively modern contrivance, right? What are gasoline taxes for, then?


I could take out a $300,000 mortgage and part with less of my paycheck from the resulting bill than some Europeans do in taxes. Considering these people live in the most favorable market (high number of doctors per capita, free drugs made by american firms or european firms funded almost exclusively by american consumers) and demographic conditions (no fatties, n-words, mexican-words etc.) that have ever existed in human history thanks to our (((politicians))) their system has always been a rapacious mess whose only redeeming quality is that the citizens are psychologically habituated to the misfortune it places on them.


>full employment

No such thing


File: f301128ad83f077⋯.jpg (207.53 KB, 786x1250, 393:625, healthcareusavsworldnation….jpg)


>What are gasoline taxes for

A tax is not for anything specific usually. That would be a fee.

>part with less of my paycheck

The British NHS is far cheaper than the American system, see pic. And there is nothing brilliant or clever about how the NHS is run, it's a fundamental systematic advantage of state-based healthcare that it's cheaper.

>>full employment

>no such thing

I have spoken to former citizens of the GDR and they had full employment.

Delete Post [ ]
Previous [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
| Catalog | Nerve Center | Cancer
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / b2 / choroy / cyoa / dempart / freeb / nara / red / vichan ]