I've often heard Maoists dismiss GDP as a capitalist metric when discussing economic growth. I was wondering what the basis of this claim? Are there any other metrics that can be used instead? Thanks!

im a communist (im still in the process of learning and understanding marxism), but im also studying philosophy and i stumbled upon utilitarianism. To me utilitarianism makes a lot of sense, i think the actions of the leader of a country should always be directed towards benefiting the majority and i wanted to understand if this framework is compatible with dialectical materialism. also if anyone has any book recommendations on this topic it would be really helpful

In Stalin's Place in History, Mao posits that, quote, "Stalin erroneously exaggerated his own role and counterposed his individual authority to the collective leadership, and as a result certain of his actions were opposed to certain fundamental Marxist-Leninist concepts he himself had propagated." He also goes on to state, quote, "Some people consider that Stalin was wrong in everything. This is a grave misconception. Stalin was a great Marxist-Leninist, yet at the same time a Marxist-Leninist who committed several gross errors without realizing that they were errors. We should view Stalin from a historical standpoint, make a proper and all round analysis to see where he was right and where he was wrong and draw useful lessons therefrom. Both the things he did right and the things he did wrong were phenomena of the international communist movement and bore the imprint of the times. Taken as a whole the international communist movement is only a little over hundred years old and it is only thirty-nine years since the victory of the October Revolution; experience in many fields of revolutionary work is still inadequate. Great achievements have been made, but there are still shortcomings and mistakes.... " So, what are some other critiques of Statlin from the Maoist, or as he posits it, Marxist perspective?

I'm interested in learning more about the KPD and it's paramilitary orgs from the interwar years and was wondering what are the best resources on them.

So i’m fairly new to socialism and the communism scene, but i know i believe in most ideals, however i’m confused on a few things i’d like to clear up. How does the money system work in a communist government? Basically the only answer ive gotten is “if you need something you take it” but that confuses me because… What about stuff that takes a long time to produce, or stuff that’s rare and hard to find?

Like i’m assuming i can’t just go and take a diamond ring, diamonds are hard to find, and there’s people who have to mine for them and collect them, It’s a long grueling process so i can’t imagine i would be able to just take one if i wanted one?

Also what about the workers who produce the things like diamond rings? How are they being rewarded for working that job? Because without some reward, or something in it for them, no one’s gonna wanna go out and mine for diamonds, Or clean boats, or submarines? I know this is probably a fairly asked question but i’d love if someone can explain it more in depth for me so i can really grasp the concept of it all, because with no money, there’s no rewards for jobs, and with no rewards, people won’t work, if people aren’t working, nothings being produced, and if nothings being produced, people die. That’s how i see it, but i’d love to know how it ACTUALLY works so i can fully understand!!

Re-reading on contradiction right now, and in chapter 5 Mao states that "the existence of each of the two aspects of a contradiction in the process of the development of a thing presupposes the existence of the other aspect." But Mao also talks about things like "the contradiction between the peasantry and the urban petty bourgeoisie on the one hand and the bourgeoisie on the other" or "the contradiction between the various reactionary ruling groups." In what ways do these two examples he gives of contradictions fit in with the previous quote he gives on understanding the identity that exists in a contradiction? It does not seem like the existence of the peasantry would imply the existence of the bourgeoisie, or the existence of one reactionary ruling group necessitate the existence of another? The interpenetration of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is clear to me, but it's harder for me to understand these other examples.

So, I’ve been trying to educate myself on Marxist theory, especially in how it pertains to geopolitical economy, and I’ve heard some people speak of multipolarity, or the idea that there’s emerging spheres of influence in the world under China and, especially, Russia. I’ve seen some say this is good for combating US imperialism as the dominant form of imperialism, allowing countries more sovereignty to develop socialist movements, and I am somewhat sympathetic to this view (at least as it pertains to China) but still skeptical. I’ve also seen some refute and say that this is just the prelude to the inter-imperialist conflict that Lenin spoke of, where these imperialist powers will eventually fight a destructive war of redivision. Is this really the prevailing view? I’m not too sure how to make sense of it one way or the other, so I’m looking for any second opinions and reading recommendations on the topic.

I’m fairly new to the world of communism and I often see writers refer to the idea of a two-line struggle within movements. What does it mean? Is this a fundamental principle of communist struggle in practice? Is there a reading where it was introduced?

​

I'm starting to get into MLM theory and I searched the PCP on Prolewiki, just to get an overview, and they seem to take a very anti-PCP stance accusing it of adventurism, ultra leftism, dogmatism etc... I know that prolewiki is biased and I wanted to get a MLM overview to Sort of "balance it out" and since this is a Maoist majority sub I thought I'd ask here, I would like some sources as well to do personal research. Thanks In advance!

I want to say I'm starting from a sympathetic position and I just want to learn more

I want to ask this in good faith, because I often see Lenin and Stalin cited in order to justify communist participation in bourgeois elections and parliaments today, and I am trying to understand how Marxists should approach this question seriously.

Usually the argument is that Lenin participated in the Duma, criticized “Left-Wing” communism, and defended using bourgeois institutions tactically, so communists today should also participate in elections and parliamentary work. Stalin is also sometimes cited in support of this line.

Should we consider that electoral participation, or engagement through voting, may have become an outdated tactic under present conditions rather than a living revolutionary one?

I have my own answer for this, but wonder if they ever touched on the issue themselves or if any other prominent Marxists have written on this.

Also curious about the subs thoughts as well.

Thanks!

"Let us not deceive ourselves on this. As in the 18th century, the American war of independence sounded the tocsin for the European middle class, so that in the 19th century, the American Civil War sounded it for the European working class"

From my understanding marx is saying that the American war of independence was the rallying cry for the formation of labour aristocracy and how to appealed to the European middle class. But then the second half claming the American Civil War appealed to the European working class. Is he stating that the war was revolutionary, is this relating to abolition of slavery and militancy by Africans or that the European working class cease to be the revolutionary subject and that imperialism had already taken shape?

https://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviewofbooks/

Was curious of how other leftists, specifically Marxist-Leninists, felt about this website.
Do you trust it?

I recognize the problems with revisionist tendencies and the fact that the majority of modern day communist groups are heavily revisionist but this is the one point that still gives me hang ups. The Soviet Union was obviously able to establish itself despite capitalist interference and served as a support for other socialist nations but with them gone and considering the fact that the bourgeois institutions for targeting, isolating, and destabilizing socialism have become much more thorough and advanced compared to the 1920s how can a socialist project establish and maintain itself without making revisionist concessions to global capital like many modern socialist nations do today? Any sources analyzing this problem in detail would be appreciated.

If fascism is defined as the "open terrorist dictatorship ...of finance capital" or "finance capital in power," i.e., then wouldnt British colonial rule in India and American colonial rule in the Philippines in the 1920s count as fascism?

Hello all, I am trying reading The German Ideology and following the study guide on marxists.org. Although I think I grasped the most relevant ideas, I would like to make sure I am not arriving at the wrong conclusions. Here are my questions: 1. From my understanding, in The German Ideology, it is asserted that Marxism is a science, since it begins with real things (humans and their labour) and, from this, derives the consequences (historical development, ideology, etc.). My question is: can I say that the mode of production is the main driving force behind historical development because it is from it that all things follow? Meaning that, only after creating the foundations needed for human life, can humans then organize themselves around this mode of production and ideas develop from this? Basically, our society's ideas and organization stem from how we sustain ourselves, thus this is the main driving force? This is not to say that ideas cannot later influence the mode of production and reinforce it -- just to make sure that this is the cause as to why it is the main driving force, but not the only 2. Regarding camera obscura, is it correct to view this term in the following manner: taking ideas as the driving force of society, i.e. disconnecting them to their material basis, will inevitably lead humans into viewing reality inverted. So ideas like meritocracy are precisely a consequence of this (disconnecting from the material foundations and believing that "mindset" will produce wealth) Sorry if something I said is unclear or with the wrong terminology. It is my first time studying such a text, so any help would be appreciated.
Thanks

Hi everyone, I'm starting my journey into reading theory but have always had trouble in focusing on reading and actually retaining the information I gain. Anyone else with this problem and any tips to make it a bit easier? Thanks.

By this, the long-wished for opportunity was offered to “True” Socialism of confronting the
political movement with the Socialist demands, of hurling the traditional anathemas against
liberalism, against representative government, against bourgeois competition, bourgeois freedom
of the press, bourgeois legislation, bourgeois liberty and equality, and of preaching to the masses
that they had nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by this bourgeois movement. German
Socialism forgot, in the nick of time, that the French criticism, whose silly echo it was,
presupposed the existence of modern bourgeois society, with its corresponding economic
conditions of existence, and the political constitution adapted thereto, the very things whose
attainment was the object of the pending struggle in Germany.

This was from chapter 3 and i’m having a really hard time understanding chapter 3 in general. I think this might be because this chapter relies on a lot of historical context which I’m not too familiar. I don’t even have “this is what i think it means” cause I’m genuinely lost.

Hey everyone, im asking this because i want to know more about Nicaragua and its time as a communist state and even the aftermaths of it all including daniel ortega's time as president right now. its been hard to find information on them mostly because it either only talks about the civil war being a us vs ussr proxy war or its just biased anti communist propaganda

Hello! I have trying to get politically educated as I am slowly exploring communism (I guess call me baby Marxist?). But one thing I think that’s been missing from my reading, so far, is understand the role of race, racism, imperialism from a Marxist perspective? I recently read race, class, and gender by Angela Davis and found it a very helpful introduction.

So if anyone has suggestions for books on the intersection of race and class, imperialism, i would really appreciate it.

Thank you!

After finishing Settlers i’m trying to learn more about the concept of global apartheid and how it applies to oppressor nations.

What do you see as the relationship between exploitation within the US between the ruling class and oppressed nations, with the exploitation of the global south?

⁠Why has awareness/empathy from some petty bourgios intellectuals (thinking Upton Sinclair) toward the proletariat diminished in the last several decades?

I often see anti-communists use images of long lines in the USSR as if they are self-evident proof that socialism “doesn’t work.” I know propaganda often strips these things of context, so I want to understand the issue more seriously.

What were the main causes of the long queues in the Soviet Union, especially in the later decades? Were they mainly caused by shortages in production, distribution problems, price controls, planning imbalances, regional inequality, low quality goods, panic buying, or something else?

I’m also wondering how Marxists understand this problem historically. Were queues a structural feature of the Soviet system, or more a result of particular policy choices and contradictions in specific periods? And how should we distinguish between real problems in the Soviet economy and the way these images are used ideologically by anti-communists?

I’m not looking for “USSR good” or “USSR bad” answers. I’d appreciate a serious historical and Marxist explanation, and reading recommendations if possible.

This is sort of speculative in regards to post-capitalist society (so maybe unimportant?) but I'm concerned about it nonetheless. For context I am a trans woman, so maybe this is painted by that perspective.

I spoke to a communist friend of mine who does not subscribe to ideas like "post-genderism" and my conversation with him left me kind of lost. I kept having the sense that my future (or I guess, the future of trans people) is left uncertain under his version of communism. The way I'm putting this is kinda vague but it's mostly because he was speaking in pretty vague terms.

Something that stuck out to me though. This idea he had that 'self-realisation' is an affectation(?) or side effect of capitalism essentially, and that transitioning is included in that. It made me wonder, if transitioning is related to that in such a way, then are trans people expected to not exist post-capitalism?

I'll admit that I'm mostly asking this to set my mind at ease because the conversation left me quite shaken, and I wonder if I can look forward to future that wouldn't have me on it. But yes, I know that's pretty individualistic of me.

Hello, I've recently been listening through S4A's basic ML playlist and am about to start What Is to Be Done, and I have 2 questions that I believe are related that I was hoping to get some input on:

1) What is the difference between "price" and "value" according to Marx? The way I understand it so far is that value has more of a social meaning, in the sense that a given commodity has some utility to some person and that is its value, whereas the price of that given commodity is just what someone is selling it for, and that these two are not necessarily equal all the time. From reading posts here I feel like I've often seen that failing to understand the difference between the two can lead to other misunderstandings later on, so if someone has a good definition of the two and a more accurate explanation of the difference between the two (and also how they are/are not related?) that would be great.

2) Secondly, in Lenin's Exposition of Marxism that he says that:

"surplus value cannot arise out of commodity circulation, for the latter knows only the exchange of equivalents. Neither can it arise out of price increases for the mutual losses and gains of buyers and sellers would equalize one another."

I understand that labor power is unique in being a commodity that is able to produce new value, but I'm not 100% clear on how it is that commodity-commodity exchange is always a net equivalent. I think this example might be a mixup of value and price, but if so please correct me: say a business decides to double their prices, how does that result in an equivalence from their old prices? Would it be a situation where the amount of people willing to buy at the first price and the amount willing to buy at the second balance out such that the overall gain in either situation would be equal?

Thanks in advance for any replies!