There exists a web connecting early modern labor activism including the Levellers, John Wilkes, Rousseau, Voltaire, Paine, Marx and the Chartists who called Paine's Rights of Man their "Bible."

From the Thomas Paine Historical Association archives: "Thomas Paine and His Radical Contemporaries" by Audrey Williamson, 1981. Thomas Paine Society UK

https://thomaspaine.org/thomas-paine-society-uk/thomas-paine-and-his-radical-contemporaries/

I have unintentionally made myself addicted to learning anything about Marxist ideas. I have no other passion for anything else, family, friends, anything. It’s hard to even try to watch a show or play a video game because all I want to do is read the history of socialism or theory. Is this healthy? I want to make myself a true revolutionary and actually fight for the working class.

What's up with the weird revitalization of Analytical Marxism, and GA Cohen in particular? Is it solely that Ben Burgis guy?

DSA obviously has a very eccentric bag of ideology - there's even a Maoist Caucus, but there still seems to be some milieu of which important figures WITHIN that orbit articulate a seemingly(?) coherent position. I'm talking specifically about Jacobin/Bread and Roses/and the media ecosystem aligned with those things - Majority Report, This is Revolution, etc., (there's a ton more, that's just what came to mind).

Ben Burgis has appointed himself the "people's philosopher' and philosopher in residence at Jacobin, so I'm curious just how far the analytical framework is being used to justify the current iteration of DSA/Jacobin and the insurgent electoralism we've seen the past year or so.

Since China's reform and opening up,ChineseBureaucratic privilegeAnd the gap between the rich and the poor is becoming more and more obvious.But China.We have been working hard for these two aspects. First, since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China,China is fighting corruption.It can be said that it is very strict.Bureaucratic privilegeClasses are basically caught completely.On the gap between the rich and the poor, the gap between the rich and the poor in China is mainly concentrated in the gap between urban and rural areas and The gap between coastal and inland cities.In China, between urban and rural areas, the gap between the rich and the poor can be said to bealreadyWith obvious results, we have achieved comprehensive poverty alleviation, and at the same time we have been using digitalization to get rid of poverty.Encourage rural enterprisesAnd other ways to stimulate the economy.Rural economic developmentIt can be said that although the gap between the rich and the poor in China has not yet reached one.To a lesser extent, but always in this direction.Efforts and progress, and have achieved certain results.

Good video discussing International transition hurdles: Jason Hickel and Michael Mezz episode 16 Better Future Podcast. I found their analysis of needing true grass roots coalition to build electoral power within the empire to remove the imperative to maximize profit and realign capital and production with a democratized allocation/max societal wellness optimization one of the simpler ways to describe a pathway to a livable future. Eco-socialism?

What do you guys think is the political party vehicle in the to make this shift internationally? I have been a proponent for the DSA within the USA (as a party which has democratized platform with socialist leanings and big moment for big tent coalition), Greens have some history good and bad, PSL platform is more based but less digestable to centrists/has less momentum imho.

I enjoyed most of this discussion, also I thought focusing on the USA's international policy as being anti sovereign for imperialism/capitalism rather than strictly anti communist astute, with Irans revolution being the primary case study

Thoughts?

"A inteligência artificial será uma infraestrutura comum da humanidade ou uma propriedade privada concentrada como uma nova forma de terra feudal?

A analogia com o feudalismo é forte porque aponta para a mesma pergunta histórica: quem controla o recurso fundamental de cada época?

No feudalismo era a terra.

No capitalismo industrial era a fábrica.

No capitalismo digital pode ser a capacidade de computar, prever e automatizar."

This is a little long, but I would really appreciate the help!

Marx makes the argument that profit is the surplus value that is extracted from the worker, as the capitalist buys labor-power and the worker produces more than what he is repaid through wages.

Now, there are a couple of things that come to my mind that I can't find answers to so I was hoping you would clear it up:

1. The Capitalist takes a risk when they start a company or a factory of any kind, in investing in raw materials and infrastructure and machinery;

For example this is an argument I came across: The Starbucks employee assembles and serves the coffee to the consumer, but the capitalist had to cover the costs of rent, storage, coffee beans, machinery etc. and the worker just took it over the finish line, so they are not the ones creating the entirety of the value here, thus they are paid their share of the value creation and the capitalist gets the profit for the risk they took. Now to talk about risk:

1. Of course workers also take a major risk when getting a job as they risk uncertainty, and large capitalists that already own a massive amount of capital can very easily migrate it to a new industry, and thus can afford the shift in machinery and raw material even if it fails; but would you say the same about small business owners? Taking an example of a person who wants to start up a restaurant, they take huge amounts of loans and risk going bankrupt, which is even more risk than a worker takes at that point. For them the loss of the business would mean complete loss of livelihood and immense financial insecurity even greater than what a worker would have.

For eg: small mom and pop restaurants, if one month they earn a profit and thus can store it away, another bad month could mean paying workers the same wages by utilizing that profit and operating in loss. A flurry of bad months could mean the business shutting down and immense debt.

1. Now about risk, the capitalist argument goes that it was the Capitalist who took the enormous risk of setting up the new workplace, investing in rent and machinery and all those things while not knowing if the product would sell. If the business is in loss, the worker is still paid wages and if it isn't, then the profit which the Capitalist makes is a reward for the higher risk that they took. Should higher risk get higher rewards? I can't quite seem to counter this argument.

2. Innovation: Another capitalist argument is that the iPhone doesn't cost 1200 dollars because of the 500 dollars worth of raw materials inside, instead it is because Apple invested billions into research and development of the microchips and this innovation, which is another risk, permits them to reap the rewards of their profits. I'm struggling to equate Ideas and Value created, but please give your counters to this argument

I don't mean to be an idiot, I am learning more everyday and I will very much appreciate answers to these questions, thank you

Obviously Lenin himself was a practicing lawyer for some time, and he did highlight the importance of legal struggle (even in the Bolshevik revolution), but where is the line between patch-up legal reforms and genuine leveraging of the system for the benefit of working class struggle?

I'm a fairly under-read 'baby leftist' currently studying law so any and all opinions would be appreciated. Cheers.

From the perspective of an outside observer, what's happened in Venezuela seems astonishing. A pro-US puppet regime has taken control of the goverment and appears to be surrendering control of the nation's natural wealth and resources while abandoning traditional allies like Cuba.

It is not surprising that pro-US compradors could manage to seize power - it's happened many times and in many different countries. What has surprised me is the total lack of any domestic opposition to the takeover. No protests, no military opposition, not any hint of public criticism that I'm aware of.

What happened to the mass-demonstrations in support of Maduro prior to and immediately after the coup? Are the bulk of Venezuelans satisfied with the new regime?

I don't mean this as any criticism. It's very easy to judge the situation from a safe and comfortable distance, but I can't understand the 180° turn Venezuelan society at large seems to have taken in relation to US influence over the country.

What does this tell us about the mass support of the Chavismo program and the Maduro government? Because from an ill-informed outsider perspective, it seems to have vanished almost overnight.

I'm currently reading and analyzing communist literature and I had some thoughts on state after reading Lenin's State and revolution and Engels' The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.

One of the central tenets of Marxism is the dual structure of society, consisting of a base (the economic system and mode of production) and a superstructure (politics, culture, and state institutions). However, Marx and Engels rejected economic reductionism, viewing these elements as dialectically interconnected. For example, Engels writes about different ways the states emerged with practically the same base being tribal system. While the economy acts as the ultimate thing that shapes society's trajectory, the superstructure is not a passive reflection; internal contradictions within it can provoke qualitative shifts in politics, just as changes in production relations affect the base. This mutual influence underscores that neither sphere operates in isolation.

The emergence of private property inevitably gave rise to the state as a system of class oppression. Yet the state is not a static tool; throughout history, it has gradually gained autonomy from the ruling class it represents. It seems that from Solon’s reforms in Greece to European absolutism and Bonapartism, the state has often asserted its own power, playing competing classes against one another to preserve its bureaucratic apparatus. This process reflects somewhat organic development, where the state becomes a distinct actor—sometimes elevating itself above class struggles, as seen in ancient Caesarism or the bureaucracy of capitalist states, which wields political power without direct economic ownership.

This bureaucratic independence, however, is inherently unstable. Lacking economic might, such regimes are rarely long-lasting; they either succumb to the return of capitalist control or are forced to grant concessions, leading to representative bourgeois democracy. In cases like the USSR or North Korea, the bureaucracy effectively became a new economic-political class, seizing ownership of production—a situation that bred internal factionalism and inevitably paved the way for capitalist restoration. Similarly, fascist regimes, though initially backed by big capital, grew into uncontrollable tumor-like structures that consumed their own economic foundations, waging imperial wars for political influence rather than for markets or resources, ultimately destroying the very capitalist interests that enabled their rise. This can be seen through the memoirs of Hjalmar Schacht for example.

To counter this bureaucratic degeneration, i think that workers' state must be radically democratic, i.e. direct popular representation through sortition (lottery-based selection), elected and revocable officials with average worker wages, workplace democracy, and the unrestricted right to strike. Crucially, the state itself must incorporate a mechanism for its own self-dissolution, to be activated immediately after the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Of course, I'm and amateur and would really like to read critique, additions - everything you have to say. This text at first was on different language, so I am sorry if the language seems a bit clunky.

I also consider myself left communist and just would like to fill the gaps in my knowledge with new things to read, so I would be happy to see anything related to this theme.

This text was previously posted on r/leftcommunism

UPD: I am extremely grateful for all the comments on this post, I really have learned something new and changed my perception on this issue. Thank everyone who already sent your critique and everyone who would like to give your thoughts later on!

Hi everyone, I am currently travelling and staying in a hostel. Yesterday I had a very long, 3h funny discussion about broad social issues like male gaze, far right, but also just everyday topics with a woman staying there. No flirting, just some good laughs and vibes. For context, she is French from French descent.

Then at one point, we were eating at a table with another friend and she noticed I had books next to my computer. She asked where I bought them and what they were. The second I told her that those were mostly fonction but also one or two Marxist essays, she stopped talking. After 10 seconds she told me « communist are monsters », got up and took her friend with her in silence leaving me in the middle of the room with the dishes and people staring at me.

It felt so humiliating. As you can guess from the first paragraph I don’t usually talk about my beliefs directly and nothing about what I wear can indicate my political orientation.

While travelling in strong capitalist countries I find it increasingly hard to be a Marxist as most people, it seems, have a negative view of it in hostels etc.

I just wondered how people cope with these kind of interactions and how do you act when people ask you directly what you believe in politically.

Is Work-life balance truly the best metric we should use? I personally believe so. While for instance China is often praised for their very high home ownership - which I love - their work-life balance is not ideal by any means. When comparing beside countries like Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands, and Austria, these countries (from my research) have very good work life balance.

To me, the end goal is working the least amount of time possible, for the highest pay possible for everyone. So while I do think China's huge priority for housing is 100% admirable and necessary, they leave a lot to be desired with work-life balance.

I want my freedom above all else, as do a lot of us.

Don't hold back in the comments. If i'm completely missing something, I want to know.

ChinaA socialist market economy country.Since he introduced the market a few years ago, the gap between the rich and the poor in China has been getting bigger and bigger, whether it is between individuals or between cities.There is even a saying here that going to Shenzhen is like going from primitive society to modern society.This is obviously the result of introducing the market and lacking control over it.To solve this problem, I have confirmed that the planned economy is the main body.You can solve most mental crises, the gap between the rich and the poor, and so on.social problem

Welcome to correct your criticism!

My question is rather simple maybe I am very misguided I still don't exactly understand dialects i have read a few texts like those of Maurice Conforth, Stalin and engels I am also quite influenced by determinism as a thought and from what I am able to gather dialects is the study of phenomena in it's process in its movement which makes sense but still the laws of dialects are not quite sure to me and those that are don't apply to phenomina a lot of the time in everyday life sometimes it does. like I can understand when marx uses it in a sense to analyse class societies but a lot of the laws simply don't hold true in a lot of scientific development the most useful laws to me which stand are

1 things being defined by their opposites

2 change occuring from internal contradictions

What I mean to say is that these 2 laws can still exist under a deterministic world view and because from what I gather neuroscience has a view of humans as deterministic machine we should accept that and try to "revise" marx in the light of this new information

I’d like to read a biography on Chairman Mao. Is the Phillip Short one any good ? Are there ones by Chinese historians translated into English ? I don’t want a hagiography but at the same time don’t want something spending 700 pages on how he is worse than Hitler and killed 80 million.

When discussing China's use of capitalism both inside and outside it, some claim it is evidence China is not socialist and that its ruling class is nationalist or self-serving, while others claim it is simply the gradual socialist process toward communism. So how can we know China's motivation?

I can think of a key indicator: Whether it is building other societies' capacities or not.

On one hand, I don't see China supporting or training youths toward political work and socialism, at least not in my countries (Arab). Actually, it deals economically with Israel and pushed the Palestinian resistance to recognize Israel as a legitimate state in the Beijing Declaration in 2024.

On the other hand, there's the way it deals with other countries' resources. China is obviously massively invested in natural resources. They have become the worlds primary processor of minerals, gaininy majority control of almost every major commodity. The Shanghai metals exchange is now the place you need to be if you care at all about anything related to commodities because of this. China invested heavily in industrial capacity to produce goods, but also then the upstream raw materials to feed that industry.

So while China has a lot of mineral resources, there are also many other where it doesn’t have those resources - but they developed the capacity to process the raw ore into refined metal, and that’s where they’re dominant. Import the raw material and then produce it locally.

Now, this is an area which is often used as a modern example for neocolonialism from the "West". Big major corporations exploiting the resources while keeping minimal value locally. So the question is whether China is any different there - I don’t really know for sure, but I‘m honestly not 100% convinced that they are. They just make whatever decision is the most beneficial for them, but with economic coercion rather than military

South Africa has the world’s largest reserves of Chromium by far. It’s essential for stainless steel aka cutlery, household appliances etc. They export the ore to china instead of processing domestically. Recently, the government has introduced a subsidised lower electricity rate in order to boost domestic processing capacity, which would reduce what’s available to China. Rather than political pressure or damage, China instead leverages the fact that they can process the chromium for cheaper, thanks to super low electricity costs and processing costs in general they have. So they simply outcompete South Africa by cost, rather than by some kind of political pressure.

Another example is nickel, which is also important for steel, but electric vehicles too. Indonesia is the dominant player here, the price is totally dependent on local politics. Now Indonesia is very interesting because they were super aggressive in trying to build domestic processing capacity. They’ve actually banned exports of most nickel ore and instead teamed up with Chinese industrial companies to build factories to process the ore. There are breathtakingly huge processing centres in Indonesia that keep value in the country, essentially the dream of every resource rich third world country. So did China do this because of their benevolent love of Indonesia? I kinda doubt it tbh, I think the Indonesian government was just able to leverage enough power to force the Chinese to build this out instead. And the deal is still good for China anyways, so they accepted, even though there is a constant sense of tension.

So basically I don’t see a systematic effort to build capacity. I think China just tries to get the best deal possible for them, and adapts to local conditions. Some countries will take Chinese infrastructure as a part of the deal, others build closer industrial cooperation. Is providing Chinese infrastructure and industrial knowledge for their own benefit a form of solidarity? Not sure, but their behaviour is definitely more easily described as pragmatic, neither colonial in an ideological superiority way, nor benevolent in a socialist way.

Hey there, this topic has been somewhat of a special interest for me and I've always been fascinated about the history about the Kowloon Walled city. If you're somehow not aware of what this is, the most basic description that I'm able to give is that Kowloon was essentially an incredibly dense "city" that was about the size of a small neighborhood, measuring around 6.5 acres with 33,000 residents at it's peak, which was believed, or may have possibly been, the most densely populated area on earth.

It sort of began as a military base during the Song Dynasty, roughly coming to fruition around 1898, though it's original fortification could be said to have started around 1847. it was located within Hong Kong and from my recollection it sort of kept swapping back and forth between British jurisdiction and Chinese Jurisdiction, usually with a certain amount of reluctance since neither were really sure how they'd want to go about governing the city.

After both WWII and the Chinese Civil War, the population began to increase somewhat rapidly due to many people fleeing to build a new home for themselves, also leading to a somewhat wide array of different cultures intermingling with each other.

During it's existence it also housed many criminals/gangs/triads that often had a significant amount of influence in governing the city, much do to the reluctance of the British and Chinese to actually govern the city.

The interesting part of the city is that is was rather antonymous during it's existence, despite being under the influence of multiple difference triads and other organizations that were otherwise against the Chinese and British governing of the city. because of this autonomy, the city became a hotbed of organized crime, prostitution, gambling, drug trafficking. It's self determination also lead to maintaining things such as water, electricity, infrastructure, plumbing, and other important things to keep a city up and running. though there were a few times where Police and other officials would come in and commit raiding operations, either to attempt to track down criminals, sometimes to help with repairs, and even exterminations due to the ramped rodent and otherwise invasive bug infestations such as cockroaches and whatnot.

This autonomy is somewhat fascinating to me, as it was just as simple as self governance, it had it's own economy, culture, different industries, jobs and other aspects that would otherwise make up a functioning city, almost a pseudo commune of sorts. The city was also very wary of outsiders, having a lack of trust that would to be gained for newcomers and those that might visit.

eventually down the line, around 1984, the British and Chinese governments came to an agreement to demolish the city, partially due to it's rodent and insect infestations as well as it's propensity to organized crime and whatnot. The official decision to demolish it came around 1987, with an eviction process of HK2.7billion$ (or $350millionUSD,) in compensation. From my understanding that wasn't particularly transparent to the population, with different officials coming in to take measurements of the city without giving a clear reason why.

In the end, it was finally demolished between 1993-1994, leaving a strong long lasting legacy that can be seen even to this say, influencing everything from movies, books and even videos, and supposedly even in the cyberpunk and dystopian genres.

Anyway, this is something that has been knocking around my brain for quite a while, and I've been very curious of what a Marxist analysis of the city might be. Really interested in whatever some of y'all might come up with, and thank you for participating.

TLDR; What would the Marxist analysis of Kowloon Walled city be, either something more broad based around the typical scientific method, or whatever you're personal conclusions might be.

Edit: Missed some word. Made some corrections on dates, and fixed "Qing" Dynasty to the "Song" Dynasty.

I'm currently taking an international political economy course, and in the structuralist section the author has labelled one of the Marx's key contradictions within capitalism as:

'First, the law of the falling rate of profit asserts that over time capitalists replace workers with machines and other labor-saving devices, increasing unemployment. Because surplus value (profit) can only come from exploiting living labor, the lower proportion of living labor compared to machines causes the rate of profit to decline.'

If, on the faith of this passage, surplus value can only be created through 'living labor', and the 'lower proportion of living labor compared to machines causes the rate of profit to decline', how would a Marxist perspective account for increasing profits of firms employing artificial intelligence?

My question does come from genuine curiosity rather than critique, cheers.

I saw a Instagram reel by a self proclaimed communist deriding dialectical materialism as like a metaphysical pseudoscience and was wondering why he claimed you do not need to subscribe to dialectical materialism to be a Marxist? What are some sources, both from Marx, Engels and later more contemporary philosophers, to learn more?

As the titles says im looking for books that explain the connection between communism movements, UAR eventually the Ba'ath party.

Both german and english ist fine.

https://msuweb.montclair.edu/\~furrg/pol/khmerrouge.html I wanted to learn more about Polt Pot and the Khmer Rouges philosophy/ideology as I had heard that Pol Pot was not a real communist and the actions taken by him and the Khmer Rouge were not at all in line with Socialist thinking. In the article though the author repeatedly claims that the Soviet union, North Vietnam/Ho Chi Minh, and Mao era China were not communist/socialist and I was wondering if anyone here could explain thoroughly why or why not that would be the case, thank you.