[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / dig ]

/marx/ - Marxism

It makes you smart

Catalog   Archive

Winner of the 66rd Attention-Hungry Games
/nothingness/ - R I S E U P

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


Ask me questions about anything, thread III is full.

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

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


• do you have any information on people’s assemblies in the DPRK?

• how do you respond to the “monarchy” criticism of the DPRK

• is there anything to Juche beyond platitudes on self-reliance and independence?

• would you ever visit the DPRK if the travel bans for American citizens were lifted?

I’d like to visit the DPRK but my family probably would freak out, not to mention the travel bans so I’ll probably never get to see it, at least under the current political atmosphere.



1. No. I've read a bit about how national elections work, which are similar to how they worked in the USSR, but as for specific info on local government I got nothing.

2. I don't. Obviously if Kim Il Sung was succeeded by his son, and his son by his grandson, without any compelling reasons beyond family ties, then succession is based on hereditary notions. That doesn't legally make the DPRK a monarchy, and it obviously doesn't determine whether it's socialist or not. Ceaușescu wanted his son to take over as well.

3. Not that I've seen.

4. I wouldn't immediately pack my bags and go, but I wouldn't be against visiting one of these days. The travel ban is clearly absurd given how many Americans have visited the country without incident.

Post last edited at



Here's what I found online.




>debate politics

Don't take that site seriously. it's barely above Robert Conquest levels of ridiculous falsities

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


Ask questions about Albania and/or Enver Hoxha here.

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



Hoxha did cling to personal power (he stayed in office till the day he died despite declining health, and the 1940s, 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s were filled with purges of real and imaginary foes), and national elections were largely without meaning (although this wasn't unique to Albania), but at the same time the leadership did try to guide a struggle against bureaucracy in the late 60s and early 70s, with predictably limited results. To quote from "The Albanian Cultural Revolution" by Nicholas C. Pano:

>In contrast to China's Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the "revolutionization" movement in Albania lacked sponaneity and never showed any signs of getting out of the control of the APL [i.e. PLA] leadership. . . .

>Between February and November 1966, the anti-bureaucratism campaign resulted in the reduction of the number of government ministries from 19 to 13, the abolition of military ranks (with the reintroduction of political commissars into the armed forces), the pruning of the bureaucracy, the transfer of bureaucrats from Tirana to outlying areas, and the decentralization of routine party and state operations.

>At the Fifth APL Congress (November 1-8, 1966), Hoxha announced that, as a result of the still incomplete campaign, some 15,000 former bureaucrats had already switched to productive work and several thousand other bureaucrats had taken positions in the provinces. He also indicated that the "revolutionary initiatives" undertaken during 1966 constituted only the first phase of the "revolutionization" process. . . .

>During 1968-69, the party also pursued its anti-bureaucratism campaign with a new movement for "working-class control." In a report to the APL Secretariat on Aprii 9, 1968, Hoxha indicated that this drive had two objectives: first, to use laborers as a counterpoise to the technocrats by creating workers' committees in enterprises; and second, to increase employees' responsibility for their own discipline and morale. In July 1968, the regime issued new directives further decentralizing economic planning and adminiPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


Do you know anything notable from socialist times? Any notable books, movies or consumer products



Outside of cigarettes, not really. Albania's most famous literary figure during the socialist period was Ismail Kadare, who subsequently became an anti-communist.

I don't think any Albanian movie gained any outside traction except "The Great Warrior Skanderbeg," a joint Soviet-Albanian production from 1953.


Was pre socialist Albania comparable to pre-socialism 'Stani republics? If so was transformation from nomadic lifestyle to urban similar or different?

How different was Hoxhas governorship, to say, leadership of Kyrgyzstan?



Not really. There weren't nomads in Albania, nor was Islam treated the same way as in Central Asia (fundamentalism wasn't much of an issue and there were significant Orthodox and Catholic communities.)

>How different was Hoxhas governorship, to say, leadership of Kyrgyzstan?

I don't really know how to answer that. That's like saying "how different was Honecker's leadership compared to the leadership of Byelorussian SSR."

They're two different things (one is a republic within a federation; the other is a fully independent state), under two different human beings.

Post last edited at

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.

259 posts and 39 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



I meant they lacked any known brands like Antonov, Tupulev or GAZ.



What was socioeconomic life like in 'Stanis?

What were the major employers?

What did people produce?

Were there housing problems or shortages?



Comrade Ismail, do you have an exact translation of the first five year plan (or any other five year plan)?



I do not.


>What was socioeconomic life like in 'Stanis?

You'd have to be more specific.

>What were the major employers?

The state and collective farms, like everywhere else in the USSR.

>What did people produce?

You really don't need to me tell you. Cotton was the most notable.

>Were there housing problems or shortages?

Yes, the unique aspect of it in Central Asia was the rush of Slav migrants from the 1930s onward looking for work.



>You'd have to be more specific.

How did society shift from nomadic lifestyle into (semi) industrial urbanized?

>You really don't need to me tell you. Cotton was the most notable.

Did they produce anything other than cotton? Were there any factories or brands?

>The state and collective farms, like everywhere else in the USSR.

Do you know what was labor force by occupation?

File: 652a719a78d2d5d⋯.jpg (78.84 KB, 802x592, 401:296, albanian_children_school.JPG)


hi /marx/, long time no see!

what information you people have on the system of education in the socialist countries , specifically in the USSR in times of lenin and stalin, how was the things going on? was there an early ideological teachings for the children in the kindergartens and the schools in general? and how it was exactly?


Post last edited at

File: 5011da150177144⋯.png (81.48 KB, 220x575, 44:115, attractive and cunning tak….PNG)


Can we get a dedicated book recommendation thread going? I wanted to make a request and didn't know what to do it.

Anybody have book recommendations about the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution?


Christopher Hill is the standard Marxist historian on the English Revolution, so I'd look at the books he wrote.


What are some good books on Jamestown and/or Plymouth? I keep hearing conservatives bringing these up as supposed proof that common property can't work because people don't pull in the effort but reap the reward. I'm too jaded to believe their rhetoric.



I don't know of any that specifically deal with its "communistic" element. 19th century historian Richard T. Ely briefly mentions it in his "The Labor Movement in America" as follows:

>One condition stipulated by King James was a common storehouse into which products were to be poured, and from which they were to be distributed according to the needs of the colonists, and this was the industrial Constitution under which the first inhabitants of Jamestown lived for five years, during which the idlers gave so much trouble that the old soldier, Captain John Smith, was forced to declare in vigorous language, and with threats not to be misunderstood, that "he that will not work shall not eat." "Dream no longer," continued Smith, "of this vain hope from Powhatan, or that I will longer forbear to force you from your idleness or punish you if you rail. I protest by that God that made me, since necessity hath no power to force you to gather for yourselves, you shall not only gather for yourselves, but for those that are sick. They shall not starve." . . . .

>The Jamestown communism seems never to have been regarded as anything more than a temporary makeshift. . . It is further worthy of notice in this connection that before the white man invaded America only common property in land prevailed. The American Indians held their hunting-grounds in common; at most, there was a tribal right of usufruct, founded on possession and maintained by arms.

In other words, even by the standards of early "communistic" experiments, Jamestown was hardly representative of anything. Nobody regarded the common storehouse as a permanent state of affairs, and if I recall right (I read about it many years ago) a good deal of those who refused to work were Jamestown's "gentlemen" (i.e. the richer, aristocratic elements.)

It's also disingenuous to compare a "communist" setup forced on colonizers to obtain basic necessities with the Marxist conception of communism and how it comes about.

As for Plymouth, I haven't read up on it.Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at

File: b2cac0c9f527ed5⋯.png (2.79 MB, 1274x2413, 1274:2413, Marx.png)


Marx thread?

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



Of course, I knew it was wrong. Is there are single argument the right makes against Karl Marx that isn't dishonest/a lie/ignorant? It's so frustrating they get away with all this bullshit.



Ironically, Thomas Sowell (a bourgeois economist who for the most part behaves like a conservative hack) gave a fair assessment of the only legit criticism of Marx as a person:

"Crude and repulsive as Marx's and Engels' racial remarks to each other often were, there is no need to make them still worse by putting them in the same category as twentieth-century racism that has justified genocide. Marx's much criticized essay, 'On the Jewish Question,' for example, contains clear statements of his distaste for what he considered to be Jewish cultural or social traits, but in the end it was a defense of Jews' right to full political equality, written as a reply to a contemporary who had claimed that Jews should be required to give up their religion before receiving equal civil status. Marx hoped that the characteristics he disliked in Jews would fade away with the disappearance of capitalism, thus leading to 'abolishing the essence of Jewry'—but hardly in the sense of Hitler and the Nazis. Similarly, despite his anti-Negro stereotypes, during the American Civil War he conducted propaganda for the North and for the emancipation of slaves. Perhaps more indicative, he agreed to the marriage of his eldest daughter to a man known to have some Negro ancestry, after discouraging other suitors." (The Thomas Sowell Reader, 2011, pp. 185-186.)

Sowell claims he used to be a Marxist, which probably accounts for this bit of honesty.


File: f58a6ca5ef4e26c⋯.jpg (46.17 KB, 700x600, 7:6, Dwq2bGFUcAAAGRJ.jpg)


Since this is a thread 'bout Marx, there's two biographies of him I scanned last year:

* https://archive.org/details/LifeTeachingMarx

* https://archive.org/details/MarxBiographyGDR

And of course an official Soviet biography I scanned years back: https://archive.org/details/KarlMarxABiography


File: 7e8aaf195f38347⋯.jpg (Spoiler Image, 17.66 KB, 536x400, 67:50, DxhVvLaU0AIaSQD.jpg)


Thank you, here's a rare lewd photo of a young adult marx.

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


Questions about China today and in the past

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






Great post anon.



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.

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

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



Alright, I'll scan the Bulgaria, Laos, Mongolia, Poland, and Yugoslavia ones. (Plus the other Vietnam book.) I cannot find anywhere to borrow or buy the DPRK or Albania ones, I'd buy them if you have a link. If there is no copy of the DPRK book in the series, do you know if Bruce Cuming's book on North Korea is any good?



>do you know if Bruce Cuming's book on North Korea is any good?

His two-volume "Origins of the Korean War" is practically considered mandatory reading for serious students of postwar Korea.

It's one thing to scan books from the "Marxist Regimes" series since they'll probably never be republished and are somewhat obscure nowadays, but Cummings is a big deal in the field of Korean history and is alive and well. You could very well get in trouble putting his two volumes online (from the publisher if not the author.)

I'll ask Cummings for permission first.

>I cannot find anywhere to borrow or buy the DPRK or Albania ones, I'd buy them if you have a link.

I do not. I don't even know if they exist since there's barely any evidence anywhere. I think Nicholas Pano only wrote an entry on Albania in the aforementioned "abbreviated versions" series here: >>12115



I wasn't necessarily going to scan it, just wondering if it is worth reading. I'll take your response as a yes. I meant his book "Another Country"



I've read it, it's good. So is "Korea's Place in the Sun" (which I physically own.)

You can find both of them on libgen.io


As a note, if you want an important book, albeit about 800 pages, check out Kolko's "The Limits of Power." Lots of people would find it of interest as it's one of the best-known critiques of US foreign policy in the first years of the Cold War, covering Europe as well as Asia.

Post last edited at

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

8 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: b142cb28b70b15b⋯.jpg (3.68 MB, 4128x2322, 16:9, 20181222_011236.jpg)


Not my full bookshelf but these are the leftist theory ones.

Posting this I realize I've read a way too small share of these


File: 55acf3c918a9727⋯.png (2.78 KB, 291x82, 291:82, Untitled.png)

Most of my books are digital. My physical bookshelf has mostly Russian thinkers; Bukharin, Plekhanov, Berdyaev, a bit of Stalin and Lenin, Dugin and Limonov, and other misc books; history, economics, philosophy and a few classics of literature.


File: 0d69a117aa9582a⋯.jpg (1.81 MB, 4752x2672, 297:167, IMG_20190120_204100.jpg)


Here are two books I'd recommend. The former will be useful to anyone interested in historical materialism, although the book itself isn't written from a Marxist perspective. The latter is a materialist analysis of the early years of Zionism.

The first one (which I hold open because it has no cover) is an intro to the science of cliodynamics, which is a mathematical approach towards history, that is, demographic shifts. The background of the author is in plant and animal population statistics, a methodology he attempted to apply to human populations (with obvious adjustment). This is only an intro to this sort of study of history, he has an entire series of books basing off of what he formulates in this book.



>Dugin and Limonov

why would you even pay for fascist literature



it's a few rare (unavailable online) books

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


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

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

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

So far so good.

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

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

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

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

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

108 posts and 21 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



>>(Note for later elaboration.) A specific form of credit: It is known that when money serves as a means of payment instead of a means of purchase, the commodity is alienated, but its value is realised only later. If payment is not made until after the commodity has again been sold, this sale does not appear as the result of the purchase; rather it is through this sale that the purchase is realised. In other words, the sale becomes a means of purchase.

IIRC Marx distinguishes means of purchase/circulation and means of payment in that means of purchase/circulation is the term for direct real-time correspondence between paying for an item AND receiving the ownership right AND physically obtaining it AND (I think) using it, consuming it. Means of payment is the term for just the money changing hands and other aspects can happen in a delayed way. So...

>when money serves as a means of payment

The money changes hands, but the thing is not immediately consumed on the spot.

>the commodity is alienated

The item changes ownership legally, perhaps also physically, but we are not talking about consuming it.

>but its value is realised only later

It is only used later, it probably hasn't reached the person that will actually consume it (or if we are talking about a machine that is used in production, the machine hasn't reached the business that will actually physically make use of it).

>If payment is not made until after the commodity has again been sold, this sale does not appear as the result of the purchase

Person A gives ownership rights of an item to B (perhaps the item also moves physically from A to B). If payment by B to A is not made until B has sold the item to C, B selling it to C does not appear as the result of B buying it from A...

>rather it is through this sale that the purchase is realised

...rather it is through B selling to C, C being the one actually using/consuming the item, that B's purchase from A is realized. Value is only realized inPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


Is there any good summary of Marx's rent theories? His chapters on the subject are extremely confusing in vol. 3.

Has any Marxist economist expanded on the subject of rent from Marx?

Seriously, his theories of rent are almost never discussed. Neither for not against.


File: 97474f947eb8564⋯.pdf (1.56 MB, Rent Theory and Working Cl….pdf)


I've attached an article "Rent Theory and Working Class Strategy" from 1977 that goes over different theories on rent (Ricardo, George, Proudhon, Marx). The rent on residential real estate in the form of mortgages of course played a central role in the panic of 2007-09... but "real estate" is a hybrid economic category which involves both the value and price of the buildings as commodities and the rents of the land on which the buildings are built which are two different categories mixed together under the title of "real estate."

Some excerpts from the article:

>Absolute rent can reduce surplus value by forcing up the value of labor power, as well as taking part of the surplus value produced from the capitalists. (Differential rent only does the latter). Monopoly of land is thus a problem for the capitalists, who, Marx suggested, might take to the sort of scheme suggested by Henry George, nationalizing land or taxing rents and using the proceeds for the benefit of their own class. Such a reform could abolish absolute rent, forcing all land into use. But it would only transform differential rent from a payment to a landed class to one to an organ of the bourgeoisie. The reform might be urged on labor as a means of reducing food prices, but gains from this reform would, in Marx’s view, be limited because capital could later seek to capture the rest of the benefit through wage reductions. These would be possible because the reform would do nothing to alter the primary way in which land ownership bound labor, namely by preventing the free access of labor to one of the means of production. The British enclosures had first enforced this separation, which was necessary to capitalism. George’s reforms - or the credit reforms of Proudhon which would redistribute land somewhat from a landed class to small businessmen, would not end this situation.

>Engels adds the point that the ownership of housing fails to provide workers with access to the means of production (the owner of a home is still dependent on wages for survival), and that it also ties workers down and divides their interests, tying their small investments to the fate of particular pieces of pPost too long. Click here to view the full text.



>Means of payment is the term for just the money changing hands and other aspects can happen in a delayed way.

Or the other way around, first physical transfer of whatever thing and then money. It's "means of payment" whenever the transfer of money and thing or service don't happen simultaneously.


>>12108 (me)

>Or the other way around, first physical transfer of whatever thing and then money

Just went ctrl-f through a bunch of Marx and actually all the examples I found where of the type of delayed payment.

File: b54dbe223615094⋯.jpg (490.5 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, FathersOfCommunism1920x108….jpg)


What are your guys' thought on Nazbol? Personally, I think it's cringy as fuck. Seems like they're mostly just edgy children who don't actually know what communism is, but relish in the controversy of the hammer+sickle and Nazi flag. Plus, are their beliefs not counter-revolutionary and authoritarian to an extreme?

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



Has anybody read “The Worker” or anything else by Ernst Junger? What did you guys thinks of it?



No, but I've actually read Dugin, no joke. He's interesting to read, if you like a weird mixture between Spengler and Heigedder with a bunch of Third Worldism. I don't really think anything follows from his theories though, except "support Russia in its anti-imperialist struggle". I can draw nothing else from it.


National Bolshevism has some history, but ultimately it's just a reactionary meme taking advantage of Soviet aesthetics with no real point other than to put a hammer and sickle over chauvinist and social-chauvinist clickbait.


>Aren't they basically just the Nicolae Ceaușescu / Kim Jong-un flavor of Marxism-Leninism?

I don't know enough about Ceaușescu to comment, but the DPRK is a lot closer to the PRC and USSR in its elimination of private motive and common ownership of property etc. etc. than to bourgeois independence movements or whatever. Juche and Songun are necessary strategy when there's a 3,500 acre US military base 20 minutes from the DMZ, over in the ROK.



Fritz Wolffheim, Ernst Niekisch, and Heinrich Laufenberg are also good reads.


In the 1990s Uber-Reactionaries who viewed even Yeltsin and the United Russia as "To Liberal" "Jews" "Puppets of America" etc began to rebrand themselves as "National-Bolsheviks" in the attempt to court Soviet-Nostalgics and Leftists to their cause

The "Movement" had its ups and downs through the 90s attempting to pander to its true base (The Ultra Right of Russian politics) and those who it viewed as easy election fodder (Marxists / Soviet-Nostalgists / Leftists / Liberals / People in general disaffected with both Yeltsin and the KPRF)

The "movement" effectivly died with the fall of Yeltsin with most of the Orgs Balkanising over the question of whether they should suck putins dick or not

File: fd1acd4f64c2696⋯.png (67.28 KB, 1920x800, 12:5, ClipboardImage.png)




>I feel that being limited to an imageboard, without archiving and good threads that just disappear isn't ideal for our type of discussion. It's fine for consumer interests, where new fads and fashions allow for recycling of threads and discussion of the same topics. For our purposes to be able to search through discussions that already happened is fantastic. How many times do we need to answer the same questions, repeating the same talking points ad nauseam?

>What I want to be part of is an "all-inclusive" leftist community. Not a movement, not a Left Unity political party. Just a place for leftists to come together and associate with one another in an environment where their words won't get them in trouble. Where they won't be denounced as 'tankies' or 'anarkiddies', because that doesn't create a welcoming atmosphere. I haven't found a place like that yet, so here's my attempt at creating it. Last place I knew like that was revleft, but that's dead now. And as time passed revleft also became more sectarian. I reckon it had something to do with the site moderators picking favourites and being sectarian themselves.

Ismail if you're here I'm interested to know your thoughts and if you have any experience with revleft.

1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


I signed up this morning. I hope it does well but the critical thing is whether it picks up enough users to actually have a community. I've been tired of imageboards and the shit that comes with them for a while so a new forum with an actual userbase would be great


If that ever flounders, could always use my forum. There's off-topic areas for registered users, and I could always make those public.



What's your forum?



the link to his forum is literally stickied to the top of /marx/



I'm sorry, I read it a long time ago and forgot all about it -- thanks.

File: bdabd51c619e4ad⋯.jpg (119.16 KB, 453x640, 453:640, Stalin-diamond-embroidery-….jpg)


> New vid by FinBol


Was Stalin based?

Should Trots get shot?

What text by Stalin should be read and what moments in the history of Stalins USSR outline the development of a new (Socialist) mode of production?

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



I don't think anyone argues the majority of those who died in the Great Purges were guilty, but when it comes to the Moscow Trials and the trial of Tukhachevsky and other military officers there's plenty of people who defend them and argue Trotsky really did plot with the Nazis to dismember the USSR, Tukhachevsky really did conspire with the Nazis to organize a military coup, Bukharin really did involve himself in acts of sabotage, Kirov really was killed by a massive conspiracy, etc.

Also a lot of these people will acknowledge "yes lots of innocent people died during the Great Purges" but never specify who. If you bring up someone wrongly killed, like David Riazanov or Osip Piatnitsky or innumerable other examples, in my experience they'll be reluctant to acknowledge it.



>when it comes to the Moscow Trials and the trial of Tukhachevsky and other military officers there's plenty of people who defend them and argue Trotsky really did plot with the Nazis to dismember the USSR, Tukhachevsky really did conspire with the Nazis to organize a military coup, Bukharin really did involve himself in acts of sabotage, Kirov really was killed by a massive conspiracy, etc.

But primary source evidence (both Soviet and non-Soviet) would suggest this was in fact the case. Again, regardless of whether innocent people were killed we basically are left with the alternative of declaring all Soviet state evidence from that era as invalid for no reason at all. Looking at the primary sources presented by Furr, it actually impressed by the tenacity and thoroughness of Soviet investigators—as was Davies.

I think it should be noted that if you dismiss the Moscow Trials whole hog then your basically left with the left-anti-communist version of the Kennedy assassination or some other similar vast counter-conspiracy—Stalin initiated a vast terror for no reason and then covered it up despite punishing those he felt responsible for the excesses of purges and those he thought were really guilty.

It just doesn’t make sense. The Trotskyist-Rightist approach to the Moscow Trials mirrors that of JFK conspiracy theorists to the Warren Commission in that there is the assumption that state evidence can not be believed because a suppression has been carried it out on behalf of the people in power and likewise, few if any ever recognize that their theories and those of their fellow travelers are nowhere close to being as systematic as the initial state report. It even mirrors it in the sense that JFK conspiracists declared later Kennedy Reports (House Committee on Assasinations) to be the final word when evidence later came out to support the initial conclusions of the Warren investigation; likewise, later Soviet reports that were declared the last word have been found lacking in light of new evidence.

As for who was actually guilty and who was actually innocent—we aren’t at the point where we can Post too long. Click here to view the full text.



>But primary source evidence (both Soviet and non-Soviet) would suggest this was in fact the case.

Where's the evidence? 80 years have passed and we have nothing from the German, Polish, British, or other archives substantiating anything in the Moscow Trials. There's not even anything from the Soviet archives except more "confessions."

>as was Davies.

Joseph E. Davies observed the Moscow Trials and felt the defendants acted genuine. That was his "proof" (together with the subsequent victory of the USSR against Nazi Germany) that the charges of the Moscow Trials were legit. There were many other people who covered the Trials and considered the behavior of the defendants absurd and unbelievable.

Not to mention that, again, close to a century has gone by. Proof of such a wide-ranging conspiracy clearly needs to go beyond a diplomat saying "well they didn't look coerced to me and the charges sound credible." That attitude was justifiable back in the day. It isn't now.

>Stalin initiated a vast terror for no reason and then covered it up despite punishing those he felt responsible for the excesses of purges and those he thought were really guilty.

Stalin initiated a vast terror because he sincerely believed there was a gigantic conspiracy to overthrow him. That's what Soviet archives indicate.

The irony is that Yezhov, who was indeed punished for excesses, was one of those whom the Moscow Trials defendants were accused of diabolically plotting to kill. Of course, when Yezhov was arrested it was claimed he was in cahoots with Bukharin and Co. all along. Similarly, Politburo member Postyshev was supposedly one of those whom the defendants plotted to assassinate (according to the first Moscow Trial in 1936), but Postyshev was himself "exposed" in 1938 and shot and the matter of supposedly being the target of a dastardly plot never came up again.

There's no evidence for 99% of the Moscow Trials charges. The bPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at



>There's not even anything from the Soviet archives except more "confessions."

Yes, but the thing is is that the confessions are mutually-corroborating without showing signs that they were orchestrated by some grand master-mind. As Furr has amply showed at length, defendants withheld information, engaged in misdirection, refused to talk on some issues while confessing on others and were often doggedly insistent on the details of the crimes they confessed to. On the latter point, one cohort of Trotsky's was insistent that they had made contact with German military intelligence in 1922 and corrected his interrogator on this point, why? It was still high-treason regardless the penalty would be the same why quibble over such a small detail if you had been bullied into confessing in what amounted to a "show trial"?


It does actually speak to something that a legal expert observed it and found it credible whereas the vast majority of its critics neither observed, nor typically even have legal experience.

>There's no evidence for 99% of the Moscow Trials charges.

Is this the whole circumstantial evidence isn't actually evidence meme again? Very rarely are convictions secured on the basis of "physical evidence" alone even under bourgeois judicial systems. Circumstantial evidence can be actually more convincing than direct evidence when there is enough of it. Hell, the prosecution of Timothy McVeigh consisted mostly of circumstantial evidence to cite a famous example.

>but of semi-fascist Poland and Nazi Germany.

Funny that you bring that up because there is the Arao document, the Benes note and the debriefing of Lyushkov as related by his Japanese handlers. Given that the Soviets had access to these it seems likely to me that they weren't actually looking to defend the Trials post-Stalin. Not exactly the same as your claim "no evidence" and to wit I think its worth noting what Gerald Posner wrote about the Kennedy Assassination--if there was a CIA plot to kill Kennedy thPost too long. Click here to view the full text.



>defendants withheld information, engaged in misdirection, refused to talk on some issues while confessing on others and were often doggedly insistent on the details of the crimes they confessed to.

The narrative to be unveiled at the Moscow Trials evidently came into being gradually, it wasn't all written up in Stalin's office on day one. Nor is it surprising that people being interrogated would confess to certain charges and not others they'd consider absurd, e.g. Bukharin during the Trials confessed to certain things but rejected that he supposedly plotted to kill Lenin.

There's no proof in multiple people with multiple ways of getting confessions extracted from them (mostly via torture, long-term confinement, arrest of relatives, etc.) all confessing to greater or lesser involvement in a conspiracy that has no independent evidence of its existence and, even when presented by the prosecution, contains numerous inconsistencies and provably false claims.

>It does actually speak to something that a legal expert observed it and found it credible whereas the vast majority of its critics neither observed, nor typically even have legal experience.

But again, finding something credible isn't a substitute for proof. Considering the immense scale of the alleged conspiracy and how much time has elapsed with little to show for it, Davies' views aren't really relevant nowadays.

I'd also note that in an April 4, 1938 letter to WH Press Secretary Stephen Early, Davies claimed that practically all those who attended the third Trial agreed "there was a great deal that was untrue" even if the Trial itself "established that there had been a great deal of plotting on the part of many of these defendants to overthrow Stalin."

Being a representative of the bourgeoisie, Davies made a mistake common to ruling class writers. He argues in Mission to Moscow (p. 36) "that practically all the principal defendants were bred from early youth in an atmosphere of conspiracy against established order. . . Conspiracy was bred Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at

File: 20626f63f1b3bcb⋯.png (8.36 KB, 200x200, 1:1, Hammer_and_sickle_red_on_t….png)


I've made a few steps for how to gain power:

1. Make loads of propagandist. Make videos, Posters, Print out fucktons of leaflets, etc. Do not stop for whatever reason, the propaganda must flow. Start by putting up a poster in A nearby billboard for example. Do not hold back.

2. Make a political party

Make a shitty political party and invite your friends. Continue the stream of propoganda, but orientate it towards this party

3. Merge with larger parties.

Merge with other tiny communist parties. Gain more members, and merge your ideologies. Combat Sectarianism. Keep on merging till you have a reasonably big party

4. Get shit done

Make homeless shelters, give money to charity, give free first aid courses. Help the proletariat and expand your cancer-like growth. Continue the propaganda stream.

5. Get ready

Once you have a reasonably big party, stock up on supplies. Build bunkers, and plan your moves. Purge Infilitrators, continue the spread of propoganda and expand your Paramilitary.

6. Revolution

Begin by enciting riots. Get well-placed allies in the military to enact your plans, And Engage in open fighting with the establishment. Learn strategy, and Build more bunkers to hide you and your party from Bombers.

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



>bumping a nearly 6 month old thread




This trap needs to go FULL CONVERSION



You're telling us what to do but not how to do it.



>Print out fucktons of leaflets

okay then TROT



I should make a video game like this.

Delete Post [ ]
Previous [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
| Catalog | Nerve Center | Cancer
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / dig ]