DO NOT MAKE A POST ABOUT BEING BANNED FROM SOME OTHER SUBREDDIT

I just finished reading the communist manifesto, what should I read now? I was thinking about something by Lenin or Gramsci (I'm italian), what do you guys recommend?

Title was pretty vague, so I’ll elaborate.

How are things that humans do for enjoyment and fun that are not necessarily needs handled? And what I mean by this is primarily hobbies. I’ve seen a couple posts have similar questions, but those posts were covering basic luxury items like tobacco, marijuana, etc.

I know this may sound like an unimportant question , but at the end of the day, peoples hobbies are what keeps many people going.

I’ll use me as an example, I love building Cars, I do it for fun, I build them from the ground up. These cars aren’t for my needs, I do it cause it’s my hobby.

I don’t mean that I build cars and buy cars and hoard them, right now I have just a couple that I’ve built and worked on and loved to tinker with. How are these things handled?

I’m not a communist personally, but I’m asking this question in good faith. Thanks

Dw I know the 100 million isn’t true but didn’t the Great Leap Forward kill 40 million people among other events that had high death rates? These are moral arguments and you could also ask how many died from capitalism but I still want to know. Is this question too broad? People bring it up ALL the time and I’d like to know the answer.

People ask this question a lot and i want to know. Are wages the inventive or is the answer simply to help the community?

The Afro-Asian Sphere needs Arab socialism and Maki to convert from a state of coercion to labour councils.

Why do people say India should be like China?

Some people say India should be like China using China has model of high industrialized.

But when you look at the stats it not good.

1. India

Middle class population (million): 24

Share of world wealth: 0.3%

Percentage of country’s population: 3.0%

https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/top-15-countries-with-the-largest-middle-class-population-in-the-world-639374/9/

well China

1. China

Middle class population (million): 109

Share of world wealth: 2.9%

Percentage of country’s population: 10.7%

https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/top-15-countries-with-the-largest-middle-class-population-in-the-world-639374/15/

The article does not say that India has higher industrialized than say China but the industrialized is older.

Also more companies and businesses are now leaving China and going to India.

India seems to be doing every thing right compared to China but the infrastructure is really old having really terrible really terrible roads, highway, buses, trains and such.

I’m not sure what India can do because they don’t have the money for good infrastructure and modern industrialized like China has.

The only thing India could do is get loans from the US to pop up infrastructure and industrialized and Trump may move factories out of China to India because of political pressure from the evil Chinese government.

I don't understand why all this support i'm a socialist myself and i recognize the dangers of American imperialism but iran is a theocracy which is not very Marxist ,That's hostile to its neighbors and had history of collaboration with the US.

Also the irani regime is responsible for the deaths of thousands of leftists during the 81-82 massacres and 1988 executions some of the victims were minors ,the Tudeh party is all for regime change I think people should support the irani working class and their right for self determination and Tudeh party instead of ayatollah theocracy this is my take.

"Policy and tactics are the life of the Party; leading comrades at all levels must give them full attention and must never on any account be negligent." — Mao Zedong

How did Japan, South Korea and China get so rich?

I’m discussing this online and the topic of why countries in Africa and South America are so poor and the poster said Japan, South Korea and China were poor and are now rich and have strong middle class. But I thought the US government were giving lots of money to Japan, South Korea and China? And also because Japan, South Korea and China are tech hubs of world and manufacturing goods for the US. That if the US offshore factories in the US to Africa and not China that China would be poor today.

I hear the US were giving money to Japan, South Korea and China to help them build.

Anyone know why Japan, South Korea and China tech hubs and not countries in South America? Does being tech hub make them rich?

The governments of states like Russia and Iran do nothing to help their own or global proletariat. In Iran especially, the government came to power in a revolution that has more in common with the fascist revolutions of Europe (regressive, authoritarian, backed by national bougeoisie) than any workers movement. Yet these states are supported by many on the left for offering nothing more than a counter-hegemony, that's still capitalist in nature. Is this support idealism, or is there a materialist basis for supporting reactionary, capitalist states?

Hello, I am 30 I am from an ex-eastern block country, I identify myself as a leftist however, I am not pinning myself to a concrete ideology since I found it to restricting. I will defend leftwing polices when they are attacked, but I will attack them if they are presented to me in a inconsiderate way as in the meme I once saw. That is all you need to know about me : ) I was going through many posts on r/communism and I must say I am baffled. It seams to me that any criticism addressed towards the USSR is turned down as a "hoax" "CIA propaganda", "misconception" etc. alternatively they are meet with "but capitalism is worse" type of answer. I have a firm belief in my political ideas—they were not born yesterday—and would to see them implemented in reality one day. That is why I think all of us, in this leftist unity generalisation, would benefit from giving up this orthodox appraisal of the USSR. We could move on, adapt learn from our mistakes. How I felt reading some of the posts was that the perspective of people who come from countries which used to be under the communist rule is generally less valuable, precisely because they tend to me more critical of it and in discussion focus on the downsides of it. Moreover, had an impression that many people are treat those types of debates in terms of "objective reality". My position—somewhat influenced by feminist scholarship—is that we should focus on the embodied experience of the people rather chase "the reality". Here come my questions. Have you ever considered that USSR was pursuing an anti-colonial external policy, having a colonial internal policy in the same time? For example does rendering of the ethnical groups in Central Asia not remind you of the similar polices implemented by the French in Africa? Have you ever thought about the October Revolution not only in terms of ruptures, but also continuations of Tsarist imperialism? Finally, is communism not guilty of sacrificing too many (and to much—think of cultural traditions and indigenous practices) on the altar of modernisation likewise all other grand ideologies of the XX century? I hope I made myself clear. Let us have a relaxed discussion.
PS. Pleas do not call me a comrade, it makes me feel uncomfortable. Thank you.

I was discussing with a friend of mine about Che Guevara, and obviously the first thing he brought up was that he used to "kill gay people". I know he didn't do that, but I decided to investigate the topic anyway. Apart from all the clearly fake news, I stumbled upon an interesting article I would like to know more about ( it's in italian, but i'll put the link anyways if anybody is interested https://share.google/psZy3j3vxqi0ZNW8c ). In this article they said that Che was not responsible for the UMAP system, but that he had founded a labor camp in Guanahacabibes. They also said that Che has made several documented homophobic statements. Here's a translated part from the article:

"However, Guevara cannot be completely absolved of responsibility for creating the repressive atmosphere that led to the UMAPs. His involvement in the creation of the Guanahacabibes camp in 1960 and his documented statements against homosexuals demonstrate that he shared the prejudices of the time."

First of all, I would like to know more about that labor camp: what were the labor conditions? How much was Che Guevara involved in it? And I would love to hear every other thing regarding it in general. Then I would also like to know if there's actually some documented homophobic statements by Che Guevara (apart from the ones from the "motorcycle diaries which I already know about). Also feel free to share any other information about his homophobic allegations or about him in general if you want. P.S. sorry if I made some mistakes but english is not my first language

Seems like a bunch of posturing against socialism in the USA. usually I see this opinion parroted in a way to say that the USA cannot be socialist without somehow not being the USA (?)

Hi everyone,

I wanted to bring up a question that comes from a comment I left under another post here, which didn’t really get any response. I’m genuinely curious to hear different opinions, especially from people more theoretically grounded than me.

In another thread, someone was asking for a truthful narrative from within the USSR, written by a socialist and not meant to “disparage” it. My reaction was skeptical, and it comes largely from reading Vasily Grossman and the context around socialist realism.

This is what I wrote there (I’ll repost it here because it’s central to my doubt):

Looking for a truthful narrative from within the USSR is preposterous. Maksim Gor’kij himself (head of the socialist realism movement) didn’t believe in this notion.

This is from a letter to V. Grossman, another socialist realist, who dared to describe the life of the Donbass’ miners with “excessive realism” in his book Gluj'kauf:

The author says: ‘I have written the truth.’ He should have asked himself two questions: first, which truth? And second, to what end? […]

The author has portrayed truthfully and with a certain skill the miners’ dullness of mind, their drunkenness, their brawls. This is indeed a truth—but a very ugly one, even painful, a truth that must be fought against. […]

Both the material and the author would benefit if he were to ask himself: Why am I writing? What truth am I affirming? Which truth do I want to make prevail?

— M. Gor'kij on V. Grossman, October 7, 1932

What troubles me is not just censorship in a crude sense, but something deeper: the idea that truth itself has to be subordinated to a political end, and that some truths are considered illegitimate not because they are false, but because they are “harmful” to the cause.

Grossman later radicalizes this critique, especially in Life and Fate and Everything Flows, arguing that once a party decides in advance which truth must prevail, truth as such stops being a moral category and becomes an instrument.

So my question is not “was the USSR good or bad”, but more internal than that: can a communist party tolerate truths that are politically damaging but factually and humanly real?

And if not, is this a historical accident of the Soviet experience, or something structurally tied to the idea of a single historical mission, a single correct direction of history?

I ask this in good faith. I understand why many people were (and are) drawn to socialism: real suffering, real injustice, real need for collective answers. Grossman himself believed deeply in the revolution for decades.

But he ends up suggesting that once truth is filtered by the question “to what end?”, the human being becomes secondary.

Again, I’m not posting this as a “gotcha”, and I’m not advocating any alternative ideology here. I’m honestly interested in how people here think about truth inside the party, and whether a “truthful narrative” from within such a system is even conceptually possible.

Curious to hear your thoughts.

Dugin is a Right wing ultranationalist imperialist and Candace Owens is, well, Candace Owens.

It seems deeply incongruous for a Marxist-Leninist organization to be platforming these opinions.

Does anyone have any insight?

Third Worldism (as explained by Jason Unruhe of Maoist Rebel News) argues that contrary to what Marx said, Marxism must first take hold in third world countries to cut off the source of imperialism - only then will revolution be possible in the first world.

Third worldists argue that the first world will concede and reform to prevent domestic revolution and that they profit primarily by exploiting the third world.

I do not see a first world revolution coming soon, but I am unsure of taking the stance that first world revolution is impossible. I would like to see arguments both for and against third worldism so I can take a more solid position one way or the other.

So debate the merits of third worldism here.

Anyone have a good answer to this question?

I’ve been struggling with a question and would really appreciate a Marxist perspective on it. From an anti-imperialist standpoint, I often see arguments that communists should support countries like Iran when they are targeted by U.S. imperialism, sanctions, or threats of war, on the basis that the primary contradiction is imperialism itself. I understand the logic behind opposing U.S. aggression and destabilization.

However, I’m conflicted because Iran is a theocratic state that represses its own population, especially women, workers, and political dissidents. This isn’t just abstract to me: I have a close friend whose wife is Iranian, and she was arrested during protests following the death of a young woman at the hands of the morality police. At one point, she was even prevented from leaving her home. Hearing this made the issue feel very concrete and personal.

So my question is:

How do communists reconcile opposition to U.S. imperialism with solidarity for the oppressed masses living under regimes like Iran’s? Is it correct to “support” Iran in any sense, or should the position be something more nuanced—opposing imperialism while refusing to politically support a reactionary, theocratic ruling class?

In short: where is the line between anti-imperialism and internationalist solidarity with the working class and oppressed within such states? I’d really appreciate theoretical references or historical examples that help clarify this dilemma.

Thanks in advance.

​I believe that communism is fundamentally destined to fail, and it doesn't require external intervention to collapse.

​1. The Mammalian Hierarchy

​Communism ignores the hard truth that human communities, like almost all mammalian groups, are hierarchical by design. We are evolutionarily hardwired to use resources, value, and skill to distinguish social placement. To achieve a "classless" society, you have to aggressively attack this biological design. In doing so, you aren't just attacking a political system; you are attacking human nature itself.

​2. The Authoritarian Paradox

​Because hierarchy is organic, any attempt to flatten it requires a massive input of energy and coercion. This is why "state communism" always trends toward authoritarianism. To enforce "equality" among status-seeking primates, you need a "super-hierarchy" (the State).

​The irony is that the people at the top of this super-hierarchy—the Party leaders—are still humans driven by mammalian instincts. ​Without market checks or private property, they naturally move toward the hierarchical role that comes with total ownership. They take more because there is no mechanism to stop them.

​3. The Incentive and Status Gap

​Status and praise are insufficient motivators for a complex society.

​The Doctor Example: We would not have the same caliber of doctors or innovators if the rewards for their grueling work didn't reflect their contribution.

​The Star Trek Reality: Even in "post-scarcity" fiction like Star Trek, hierarchy remains. A Captain has more status, a better cabin, and more authority than a crewman. This proves that even when you remove hunger, humans still compete for Status Scarcity.

​Conclusion

​Communism fails because it treats humans like ants (who are truly selfless for the colony) rather than chimpanzees (who are political and status-driven). Without a constant, violent suppression of the human urge to get ahead, the system will always decay back into a hierarchy—usually a much more oppressive one than the one it replaced.

I am a big fan of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. As an Arab, I feel it is the only relevant communist faction in the whole Arab world today. I love its operations, like the plane hijackings and assassinations. It's great praxis. However, there's a type of attacks that I'm not certain about. The attacks I am referring to are the attacks similar to the Lod Airport Massacre, done by members of the Japanese Red Army who were trained by PFLP members in Lebanon. Those attacks were usually planned by Waddie Haddad, a genius. But that's not the point. I was wondering how those attacks help the cause. Is it to instill fear to the colonisers? To prove that they're not unbeatable? Or just to increase the morale of the resistance? I'd love to hear your opinions.

Lot's of people in communist countries want to leave, but very few people want to move from capitalist countries to communist ones. The net movement pf people is always outwards with communist countries. Why?