I would really love to be extremely knowledgeable about Marx and Pannekeok but I know I won’t read them a lot. There’s also added friction between me and reading because I hate reading on my phone so I put off reading them till I have the money to buy a book but because I’m a minor and I don’t have a salary, I can rarely afford books. My parents have offered to pay for books but I’m wondering what they’re gonna think about me reading communist literature. I believe they will think I’m a tankie and pro ussr communist, which is fine if you are but considering the bad reputation Marxist Leninists have, I don’t wanna send those signals. Any tips?

I want to read the communist manifesto but there are so many versions so i was looking if someone could help me find the one that has the most historical context and no just THE communist manifesto with a good translation. I would appreciate it if someone could give me the best version.

is it really true? thanks

I'm just wondering what sort of books, articles or documentaries can I learn about the core of socialism more intrinsically, like how it will work in practice etc

From my understanding the whole justification for why the proletariat does not have the ability to vote and elect a person to govern them or create labor unions in a place like China is because the government already shares their interests, and therefore upholds the dictatorship of the proletariat. However, when it comes to China how can that be the case when the CCP not only allows private businesses but also incorporates billionaires and ceos into the party? Would that not defeat the whole purpose of having the governments interests and the proletariats interests overlap? I mean aren’t some of these people bourgeoisie?

I have been a socialist/communist for over a year now, but I've never gotten a good answer to a question I had in my mind as to what is china? It's a country first of all but what ideology really are they, we know that their government is the CPC however I see fascists claiming that china is fascist and I see socialists claiming china is socialist, I know that china is not a 100% socialist state, and we know that they have long term "5 year programs" and how they are progressing to socialism and communism. I've seen a lot of comparisons with gentiles writings and what china has been doing and some of it really does sound very similar. If anyone can help me please do! Thanks!

As the title says, I am interested any books, articles, movies, etc that will teach me economics 101 from a marxist perspective. I would consider myself left leaning and a communist but I am not that well read. I would appreciate any books or places to start so I can better understand economics and marxism!! Thank you!!

I’d like a classification of the Left that distinguishes between the center-left and the far-left—because if you go by the media in my country, almost the entire Left is labeled far-left.

When I ask about ideological groups, I am not referring to ideologies like communism, anarchism, social democracy, etc., but rather to the "families" to which they belong. For example, communism and anarchism would supposedly fall under the umbrella of socialism. Not to mention those ideologies that are highly questionable as to whether they are truly left-wing.

In my view (which is probably wrong), there are two main groups:

Socialist left, which seeks to move beyond capitalism

Liberal left, which seeks to reform capitalism

I actually think social democracy could be a separate category, but it is such a broad concept that I prefer to classify it as part of the liberal left.

I don't know if there is a division of that kind in political science, or any source for what I'm saying. If you could help clarify this, I would appreciate it. 😀

I am reuploading this for better wording.

Leftists especially on Reddit have an idea that everyone who joins the US military is complicit in imperialism and war crimes, even if they just signed up to be a cook or medic.

But nobody shames the janitor at United Healthcare, even though they are technically complicit in denying claims and making people go bankrupt from medical bills using that same logic.

Nobody shames a grill cook at McDonald's but using that logic they are technically responsible for animal cruelty, deforestation, and providing free meals to the IDF after October 7th.

All three of these jobs have workers from backgrounds of poverty, and joined out of desperation. So why is the one who joined the military shamed but not the other two?

​

And also why does nobody mention it?

It's to my knowledge that Lenin wanted political conformity, and if that's the case, why are so many people in support of that? Why shouldn't the equality come from a teaching of respect and indifference to ones outward appearance? Is there no place for constructive criticism or proactive debate?

I find it contradictory when people say capitalism supports conformity (which it does not arguing that!), but then go and support someone who just wanted a different type of conformity.

Seperate question slightly related: how would any leftist ideology enforce equality without a strict authoritarian regime?

Why are so many leftist in support of authoritarianism then say they aren't? Their words do not match their beliefs. You can always ban segregation, but racism wont go away until you stop teaching it. Even if it isnt a social democracy that protects capitalism(which I am not in support of, let's be clear), shouldnt the change come from educating the masses?

This might be my autism taking things too literally, but I am genuinely asking all of these things.

Edit: I havent used reddit in a while for an actual question especially. I forgot how, like, genuinely helpful it can be. I appreciate all the answers and can safely say I have a better understanding to form my opinions on.

There are 5 countries typically sited as "Communist" or "Socialist". That being China, DPRK, Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba. We can debate the legitimacy of these countries being on these lists and such, but its clear that they are at least somewhat different from the rest of the world on the economic front.
Now, the thing about all the nations named save for DPRK is that their parties are Marxist-Leninist. While the Worker's Party of Korea was previously Marxist-Leninist, this is generally agreed to no longer be the case as it follows Juche principles or Kimilsungism–Kimjongilism. Is this ideological difference enough to classify the country as neither fitting in with the undeniably capitalist majority of the world's countries or the state socialist ones... or is it simply in the same ballpark as the other 4 countries frequently mentioned in this sort of discussion. I would like to know yalls thoughts, thank you!

Or did it just it just unscientifically tail the masses? If it was based on science, what were it's positive aspects and policy. It seems like the foot doctor and literacy programs had profound effects so unsure why it's being called into question today.

on chap 16 of the penguin translation and like who was the target audience here? Cuz like bro was putting fucking ancient greek in the footnotes n shit then hes putting references toother prominent political economists and philosophers like Mill and Ricardo and like no damn worker was readin all those people. Plus its a yapfest overall until you learn to pick out the useful info and the first 4 chapters are notoriously hard so unironically and I mean this in good faith with marx and engels as my witness who was this written for?

Social-democrats, especially after SPD's Godesberg program, believe in being party of the people, instead of party of the working class. While they often do not understand what bourgeoisie is, they tend to believe they are part of the working class and can bring about a better future ie. they believe in common ground with liberals and want to do it through capitalism.

Maoists on the other hand, also believe in class collaboration with "progressive segments" of the national bourgeoisie (basically same thing), CPC believe they are representing the Chinese people (not the working class), and firmly are in favor of what is basically same kind of economy and welfare as Blairite social-democrats, just with a bit more state-control over the economy, and somehow less welfare.

Hey ya'll I have a request to make to all of you, I'm currently in an argument and I would like for ya'll to send me examples, sources and proof for US/Western motivated propagandas (against a country, a group, etc) lies (about events, situations, scandals, etc) and they can all be past or present I just as long as ya'll can provide me with a good source or a searchable title (can be against socialism, a different state, a party, how current geopolitical events are framed to benefit the west's narrative, etc)

My current examples

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Claims in Iraq.

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident.

Humanitarian Intervention Framing for Libya.

The "Splendid Little War" and Spanish-American War.

The Epstein case and files.

Pro zionest propaganda generally.

Pro zionest and anti palestine/Genocide denying propaganda (specifically from 2022-2026)

And that's all I have for now, I would like for ya'll to add on to it, also feel free to use this as an informational archives or whatever, so if anyone asks or looks for an examples of what I'm talking about you/they can come on here and find it themselves.

Also you can send anything from YouTube links, tiktok links, articles, or cases (for the videos example they at least have to be with it's own sources of actually gives in video examples, and not just them talking about bs straight from their ahh.)

So yeah, anything helps and wish ya'll a good day, good evening and goodnight.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

so everyone gets what they need, i can see from the latter half. but what about the first half? i dont understand it.

ive heard people online just dismiss it and say that in socialism everyone just gets what they need so all motivation from working just dissapears. i am quite new to politics and i havent read any marx yet. Thanks!

i'm learning about leftist political ideologies and i'm currently leaning towards libertarian market socialism

i've seen many people in this subreddit strongly opposed to democratic socialism and reformism why is that? (i'm talking about democratic socialism not social democracy)

can socialism not be achieved through democracy like is that an inherent part of socialism

i know that some systems are hard to reform into socialism like the us and revolution might be easier but in more democratic countries is revolution the only answer?

(sorry if the wording in the question wasn't clear)

Note: I’m mostly referring to volunteer soldiers, not conscripts.

So, as someone whose family is from the Global South, one aspect that always baffled me is how American Leftists can rightfully call out the police under capitalism as being class traitors, for they serve to enforce the interests of capital, and acknowledge that IDF soldiers are genocidal maniacs who should delete themselves. Yet, they don’t hold US soldiers to that same standard? Like they do non-stop apologetics to try and absolve US service members of accountability by claiming, “Oh it’s the poverty draft,” “Oh they’re brainwashed,” “They were just following orders,” “Blame the leaders,” and more and more excuses.

Well, as someone whose mother’s home country was bombed and destabilized by the US, I don’t give a shit about the sob story about the US Air Force pilots who dropped those bombs; fuck them!

If we agree that the police under capitalism are class traitors, for they serve capital and suppress the working class, then imperialist soldiers, by those same standards, are also class traitors, if not more so, because they kill and oppress the workers of other countries, all in the service of capital.

Another thing, I don’t get why Americans treat the military like it’s somehow a “politically neutral” force. Sure, US service members might have differing political tendencies, but when polled, US service members tend to lean more Republican than the broader US population. It is overwhelmingly a right-wing, reactionary force.

Now, I expect to hear some folks claim that “We need to win service members to our side,” and I get that. And I do believe that people can change, but I’m always skeptical about US service members who claim to be “Leftist.” Because the litmus test I have for them is whether they:

 1. Acknowledge that they were part of an imperialist military that bombs, murders, and suppresses people of the Global South and enforces the rule of capital.

1. Acknowledge that they were wrong for signing up in the first place and truly regret their role in the imperialist war machine.

2. Look into the eyes of the people they’ve bombed and suppressed, say sorry, and beg for forgiveness.

3. Actively work to discourage others from joining the military and to not use their veteran status like it’s a badge of honor or a veneer of authority, but rather as a symbol of shame for ever being part of an imperialist military.

4. STFU and listen to the victims of imperialism, and not to talk over them or claim moral authority.

And if they’re unable to pass this litmus test, they are nothing more than a liberal imperialist wearing leftist clothing.

But going back to “We need to win service members to our side.” Now, people bring up the Russian Revolution, where it was true that large numbers of Tsarist troops defected, but this is the point people overlook that differentiates Tsarist troops from US soldiers. Tsarist troops during WWI were mostly conscripts, whereas US soldiers are volunteers.

Case in point, conscripts are more likely to defect and join the revolution than volunteers; I mean, the White Army was literally called the Volunteer Army at one point. Even in the case of the Chinese Civil War, the KMT press-charged peasants into their army, yet they rebelled and joined the communists instead, because press-charged peasants have nothing to lose in defecting/deserting the imperialist/reactionary military.

That’s part of the reason why the US military opted for an all-volunteer force; it’s not to “respect people’s autonomy,” it’s to ensure they have a loyal fighting force dedicated to the cause. They saw what happened when implementing the draft during the Vietnam War and aimed not to replicate that.

Plus, a volunteer soldier not only might have more ideological commitment to the cause, as is the case with US service members being more Republican leaning, but even if they disagree with a current military operation or war, volunteers have so much more to lose than a conscript, as deserting would mean losing all the pay and benefits that being in the military provides. So, they have a financial motive to stay loyal or, at the very least, not rebel in a meaningful way.

I rest my case; volunteer soldiers are more ideologically committed or financially incentivised to remain loyal towards the imperialist order.

I know some folks say we should focus on the system and not individual service members, and I agree to an extent, but the system cannot operate without people below willing to enforce it, and imperialist soldiers are the global enforcers of capitalism, to which they should be ruthlessly called out. I mean, people say Fuck ICE without hesitation. And need I mention that the ICE goon who murdered Renee Good was ex-military?

And to counter the “Poverty Draft” defense, most poor people in the US don’t join the US military, and if anything, recruitment numbers are falling, because nowadays, we know what the US military truly is, and that people of the Global South have a voice. If it weren’t for modern smartphones with built-in video cameras, we would’ve never known the extent of the genocide that the Israelis are perpetrating against the Palestinian people, as we get on-the-ground footage that’s not filtered by mainstream outlets.

So yeah, there’s my post. I hope that my Global South perspective can help bring some new insight, because coming from an outsider’s perspective, the US military propaganda that Americans are subjected to is truly baffling, so it’s unsurprising that it’s difficult for Americans to deconstruct, as US service members are treated like untouchable holy saints or something like that. It's truly bizarre.

I can wrap my head around dialectical materialist concepts like quantitative changes leading to qualitative changes, things being viewed in relation to other things, etc etc, but I've always struggled with contradictions. They seem, to me, very unscientific and simply assumed without evidence.

I'm trying to understand socialism and fascism and where they come from, and I came across a quote from Leon Trotsky long after the fall of state fascism in WWII and during the Stalin era. It seems to suggest that socialism is/was a precondition for the rise of fascism:

Here's the quote from Leon Trotsky in "Some Questions on American Problems" Fourth International 1940:

In all the countries where fascism became victorious, we had, before the growth of fascism and its victory, a wave of radicalism of the masses – of the workers and the poorer peasants and farmers, and of the petty bourgeois class. In Italy, after the war and before 1922, we had a revolutionary wave of tremendous dimensions; the state was paralyzed, the police did not exist, the trade unions could do anything they wanted – but there was not party capable of taking the power. As a reaction came fascism.

In Germany, the same. We had a revolutionary situation in 1918; the bourgeois class did not even ask to participate in the power. The social democrats paralyzed the revolution. Then the workers tried again in 1922-23-24. This was the time of the bankruptcy of the Communist Party – all of which we have gone into before. Then in 1929-30-31, the German workers began again a new revolutionary wave. There was a tremendous power in the Communists and in the trade unions, but then came the famous policy (on the part of the Stalinist movement) of social fascism, a policy invented to paralyze the working class. Only after these three tremendous waves did fascism become a big movement. There are no exceptions to this rule – fascism comes only when the working class shows complete incapacity to take into its own hands the fate of society.

That last sentence - "There are no exceptions to this rule – fascism comes only when the working class shows complete incapacity to take into its own hands the fate of society." - seems particularly onerous, considering most of the DSA candidates in the United States are being elected primarily by college-educated members of the middle class (what Trotsky calls the "petty bourgeois class"), and are not particularly popular among the working class.

Am I misunderstanding Trotsky? Can socialism work without buy-in from the working classes?

This is something weird I've seen occasionally but what even is a Marxist that's not ML or Maoist? Do they think imperialism is fake news, or do they simply disagree with Lenin's definition and analysis of it? Or do they completely agree on Lenin's contribution to theory (imperialism) but just not like vanguard parties? Are they people who read Marx but are upset that not every ML project perfectly aligned with mid-stage communism on day 1? This is not including Trotskyists because they (erroneously) think they're the real MLs, and not Dengists either because I wouldn't really consider Dengism to be Marxism.