More than attempt, the socialist countries run by communist parties, the ones attempting to build towards communism, have been responsible for some of the most rapid improvements in living conditions in history. Socialism and communism aren’t like birds and ducks, but more like a sprout and a tree. Socialism is a transitional process between capitalism and communism, where production and distribution are gradually collectivized into communism.
No problem! Feel free to leave any comments or questions you may have if you choose the reading list option. The Marxism portal approach should take around an hour for the whole thing (minus the mini reading list it also recommends) so that’s also helpful if you just want to know the basics.
Marxism did not deal strictly with factory work, but with proletarianized labor, which persists today as the dominant form of labor. Further, I am really not sure what you mean by saying communism is “pie in the sky” or that human ambition is in opposition to communism. The manifesto is a pamphlet for agitation, it isn’t really the core of Marxism.
You have to understand both. Understanding why communist parties took the actions they have and do today is critical for understanding the courses different socialist countries have gone through. Theory and practice mutually reinforce each other.
Yep, that would be great! I think a good place to start would be this reading list I put together. You can just check out the first couple sections:
Before beginning your studies, it’s important to learn how to best economize our time, and why we should study Marxism-Leninism in the first place.
Webpage [~5 min]
Written by one of the founding Bolsheviks for students in the early USSR, this is a concise guide on how to best absorb the information to come as efficiently as possible by Nadezhda Krupskaya.
Webpage | Audiobook [~10 min / 22 min]
Wanting to persuade his contemporaries to pursue a path of intentional development in order to avoid nuclear war and escape the profit motive, Einstein argues the case for moving onto a planned and collectivized economy over the chaos of markets and the profit motive.
Webpage | Audiobook [~15 min / 21 min]
Roderic Day makes his case for why now, in the 21st century, Marxism-Leninism remains the strongest tool for working-class liberation, and why we should defend the achievements of actually existing socialism despite their real flaws.
Webpage | Audiobook [~5 min / 11 min]
Marxist-Leninists do not believe Stalin, Mao, etc. did no wrong, nor do we believe actually existing socialist states (AES) to be perfect and free from criticism. Proper appraisal of the genuine achievements and genuine shortcomings of socialism in real life requires brushing away capitalist mythologizing. Once the fact is separated from fiction, only then can we hope to build on the successes of our predecessors while avoiding repeating mistakes.
Webpage Transcription of Speech | Original Speech [~1 hr / 1 hr 33 min]
Dr. Michael Parenti delivers perhaps his most famous speech, discussing the predatory role of the US Empire and the progressive role played by socialist countries, including the necessary mechanisms of protection they develop against western imperialism.
Webpage [~10 min]
As a hugely successful revolutionary, Ho Chi Minh explains why it is not enough to have good intentions, we must do our best to study revolutionary theory to guide revolutionary practice.
Why do you want to study Marxism-Leninism?
How can it be helpful in your present life?
Why should we establish a socialist society?
To start off your studies, a clear understanding of basic terminology, as well as the historical context that gave rise to Marxism, is necessary.
Webpage/.epub | Audiobook [~30 min /48 min]
A glossary of terms and background information, in an FAQ format.
Webpage | Audiobook [~1 hr / 1hr 28 min]
Lenin, as a part of his rigorous studies of Marx and his writings for application in the conditions particular to his contemporary conditions, came to know and understand Marx and his ideology at a deeper level.
Webpage | Audiobook [~5 min / 18 min]
Outlaying the 3 major components of Marxism, and a short history of how they came to be.
Webpage | Audiobook [~1hr / 1 hr 35 min]
Marx & Engels call the international proletariat to action using the in this overview of the aims of the communists.
What historical context gave rise to Marxism?
What are the 3 major components of Marxism?
In your country, what does the class makeup of society look like? Which can be aligned with the proletariat? Which cannot?
Of course, I recommend the whole thing. Alternatively, Prolewiki’s Marxism portal contains a fantastic short list of articles that help explain the absolute basics quickly.
No? I have no idea where you got these ideas. Revolutionary organizing doesn’t necessarily mean throwing your life away, it means building an explicitly revolutionary and disciplined organization of cadre. These revolutionary organizations can participate in elections to advertise their platforms and grow the movement, but the understanding is always that you cannot establish socialism through reform. Marx himself was a revolutionary, not a reformist.
Again, I am not some Hasan hater. He’s not an anti-communist, but his positions are those of a social democrat sympathetic to communism and socialism. That’s not “silly,” it’s taking a consistent stance based in Marxist understandings of revolutionary change and the class nature of the state.
Revolution doesn’t just “happen,” you have to organize for it directly. Crisis is not the same as an assured revolution, to actually get revolution you need a revolutionary party leading the charge.
My issues with Hasan are that he pushes a reformist line, and focuses primarily on electoralism. I’m not some hater of Hasan, but those two positions put him squarely into social democratic territory. It’s not about some arbitrary level of “leftness,” it’s two strategic positions he has that puts him at odds with communist struggle. And no, it isn’t a silly issue at all, the concept of reformism vs revolution is an active struggle among the left in the imperial core, and the communist line historically is 100% in favor of revolution since Marx.
I’m a communist and organize for socialism. Democratic centralism is a core function of successful party-building. Infantilizing me for speaking on what I know from both historical study and practical experience as an organizer within the framework of democratic centralism is childish. How are you going to convince others of your views if you act like this? Even Hasan doesn’t criticize demcent like this, and speaks very positively of demcent organizations.
For what it’s worth, I’ve never played HoI4 either.
I disagree that he is succeeding in that by going through the DSA and focusing so hard on electoralism. It’s important to understand the necessity of democratic centralism and consistent revolutionary rhetoric, because otherwise we fall into the same problems as the second international and the SPD.
Democratic socialists are social democrats in practice, considering it is impossible to reform capitalism into socialism. Revolution is absolutely possible, but it isn’t something you trigger, it is a response to crisis with an organized revolutionary class. We need to organize so that crisis turns to revolution.
Owning a business is not the same as managing a business. Management is administrative labor, and is necessary, but the actual ownership of companies is in a tiny number of hands that work only when they choose to, on their own terms.
The alternative system is socialism, where production is collectivized, and run to suit the needs of society. We can reduce working hours this way when we are not working to fill an endless pursuit of profit and capital valorization, which gives us time to pursue human relationships, educate ourselves, and advance in our hobbies.
Hasan is more of a communist-sympathizing social democrat. His strategy is overwhelmingly reformist.
The Soviet Union and China are both examples of socialism, rub according to Marxist principles. They were called communist because they were run by communist parties with the intention of developing into communism, not because anyone thought they weren’t genuine. Both the Soviet Union and PRC were what Marx described as “lower-stage communism,” or what became known as the transitional phase known as socialism at the time of Lenin.
Communism is a post-socialist society where there is no state in the Marxist conception. The Soviet Union was socialist, run by a communist party. Stalin may have agreed with Marx on that, but did not invent it.
I’m a Statesian, so if you were down here I would recommend an org like the Party for Socialism and Liberation. Instead, I recommend channels like Red Pen who are based in Canada and bring a Marxist analysis to the forefront. I cannot say which orgs are good or bad as I am not familiar. I do think it’s important to point out that welfare in capitalism is not socialism. The Nordic countries are social democracies, not socialist, and as such are both reliant on the imperialist system propping up the west and are seeing a withering of social safety nets as capitalism continues to decay.
It really doesn’t. Scandinavian Social Democratic countries are seeing the same gradual decay in safety nets, because the imperialist system they depend on is gradually decaying. This is very predictable, however, because as capitalism goes on, and as its imperialist stage goes on, there are very understandable and gradual processes like the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. Capitalism cannot last forever, it systematically erodes its own basis. Imperialism as a stage in capitalism magnifies the problems with capitalism, temporarily reducing national-scale contradictions between workers and owners through safety nets while heightening contradictions on an international scale, between imperialist countries and the global south.
The Nordic Model isn’t “socialist ideals” keeping “capitalism in check,” it’s welfare capitalism using the spoils of imperialism to placate the working classes. As it is a capitalist system, it has structural contradictions that run into boom and bust, crises of profitability, and problems like the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. This is all not to even speak of imperialism, which is where these social democracies rely on.
The proletariat is in power in socialist countries run by communist parties. You are treating job positions as though they are classes, but that’s not how Marxists see class. Class is a relation to ownership of the means of production, not simply a managerial position being a class.
There is no hard line between church and state, or business and state. Interconnection exists between all things. The idea that businesses are free and independent really means that the state does not interfere in their ability to run, only in protecting them.