[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / animu / cafechan / clang / leftyb / milkers / vg / wmafsex ]

/marx/ - Marxism

It makes you smart

Catalog   Archive

8chan Cup Knockout Stage - Friday, January 18 at 08:00 p.m. GMT
Winner of the 65rd Attention-Hungry Games
/cure/ - Your obscure board for medical-tan appreciation

December 2018 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Verification *
File *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

File: 1428936027574.jpg (235.44 KB, 951x659, 951:659, enver_hoxha_republic_decla….jpg)


Hello, I am the new leader of /marx/.

I will continue the status quo: this board is for those who identify as Marxist-Leninist in some form, whether they uphold or otherwise identify with the Stalin-era USSR, the post-Stalin era, China under Mao, Albania under Hoxha, Cuba, the DPRK or whatever. Non-MLs are allowed to ask questions and the like.

I have a forum with a political forum area for registered users (although the forum itself is for forum games users think up and run.) If you want to get in private contact with me via PM, or if you just want to use the political forum area for whatever, feel free: http://eregime.org/index.php?act=idx

84 posts and 35 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
Post last edited at


Ask me questions about anything, thread III is full.

File: 760be99a6fcf8a2⋯.jpeg (61.07 KB, 471x704, 471:704, 67E6E53E-5579-461B-91D8-5….jpeg)


Can someone recommend me some ML literature? Essentials?

I am extremely into Che and Fidel if that helps

8 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 50a3ccff196a085⋯.jpg (700.54 KB, 768x977, 768:977, serving the people da zhon….JPG)


So I got the book and scanned it and ran it through OCR software, how should I send it to you? It's a pretty large file. I put it on google drive for now but I'll probably remove it in a little while.

Drive link:


Also, all the public libraries in my state are on one network and I can order books from all over to my library, plus I can get a lot of books through my university, so if there's something you don't want to buy but want scanned I can look for it. It didn't take me long to scan at all. Thanks for the recommendation



As I said, you could send me the image files (possibly via email; you can make an account on eregime.org and send me a private message with your email address) and I could turn it into a PDF with a vastly smaller filesize.

But yeah this is good, thanks.

As for "if there's something you don't want to buy but want scanned," the sky's the limit. There are a great many books and pamphlets that could be put publicly online. Is there any particular subject you have in mind? Or region of the world?



Well I scanned it with adobe scan so I don't have all 250 pictures separated. I do have a non-searchable version that's less than 250 mb if you want that instead though.

I'd be down to scan more on Vietnam's economy if there's anything else on that you know of. Also, any artbooks of art from revolutionary China would be neat, there isn't much of that around. Laos or Cambodia's economies in the modern era also. Right now I'm mostly interested in China/Southeast Asia.



I don't have anything else on Vietnam's economy, but there are three books you could scan:

* "History of Vietnamese Communism" by Douglas Pike, covering the 1920s-70s.

* "PAVN: Peoples Army of Vietnam" also by Douglas Pike (it's not only considered an excellent read on how the Vietnamese army came into being and won against the French and US, but a review notes it talks about its role in economic life, e.g. "it contributes to the rebuilding of the country and is even beginning to build and operate its own factories to produce the supplies it needs--and also some for the civilian economy.")

* "Laos: Politics, Economics, and Society" by Martin Stuart-Fox (it's part of the same Marxist Regimes series as the Vietnam book and was published in 1986)



>And yeah I have multiple shelves of books. My collection isn't gigantic, but it's sizable.

Bookshelf thread when? It would be interesting to see what the anons of /marx/ keep on their shelves

File: 58837d671d897f7⋯.jpg (1.14 MB, 878x1275, 878:1275, It is Lenin.jpg)


Old thread: http://oxwugzccvk3dk6tj.onion/marx/res/4702.html

If you have a question about Soviet history or about specific policies enacted in the USSR, feel free to ask them here.

239 posts and 36 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



>The prime example is Angola in 1975, where Cuba sent troops to save the MPLA from overthrow by South African and Zairian forces. Castro didn't consult the Soviets beforehand, since he knew Brezhnev would be reluctant due to attempts to promote détente with the US.

Based Castro.


All in all, who had more allies and friends. USSR or USA?



It should be fairly obvious that even at the height of the USSR's geopolitical influence in the 1960s-70s, most countries were "pro-West" in some way, from anti-communist military regimes in Latin America and Asia to NATO members in Europe.


File: 9a27210337eb67d⋯.png (55.05 KB, 1405x703, 1405:703, New Cold War 1980.png)


How many American allies were friends and how many vassals like Zaire, Apartheid,Suharto's Indonesia and Pinochet's Chile?



The distinction between "friends" and "vassals" isn't entirely clear. Even Britain had to take a large loan from the US after WWII, and countries like Italy and France sought the Marshall Plan to rebuild their economies.

File: 5aefa89dd52e8f1⋯.jpeg (151.24 KB, 1200x1109, 1200:1109, 7E557176-932C-42D3-938A-8….jpeg)


old thread: >>>/marx/10096

A continuation of the thread for general questions on socialism, history, Marxist positions of X Y Z, etc. In a break with tradition I am making the thread. If there ends up being a duplicate or you want your own thread for whatever reason, feel free to delete this

258 posts and 61 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



>but if there is any solid 'Marxist' basis in Luxemburg's criticisms, and what are the major flaws (Marxian or otherwise) you see in Luxemburg's claims?

Well again, Luxemburg criticized the Bolsheviks over multiple things, e.g. she acted as if the Ukrainian nation didn't really exist (which is certainly a dubious claim.) So if there's anything specific you have in mind, feel free to ask.


I don't know of any books, but the Constitution had been largely unchanged from 1971. It was decided to "modernize" it in 2007 because the Muslim Brotherhood wanted to form a legal political party, and the new constitution pre-empted that by prohibiting all religiously-based parties. As part of "modernizing" the constitution, references to socialism were also removed.

>What I meant, when did people of third word drooped their definition of socialism 'charity, a more equitable distribution of land, national unity'

Because many of them belonged to the bourgeoisie or petty-bourgeoisie, and were otherwise influenced by anti-communist propaganda and social-democratic arguments.

>and just moved towards capitalism?

Well, that depends. There were some Western-backed "socialists" (like Senghor) for whom socialism was merely verbal, but others like Nyerere and Gaddafi clearly tried to limit capitalist development as they understood it. But by the mid-80s their economies had faced growing difficulties.

To quote from a 1988 Los Angeles Times article:

>The area known as the Turkish market was formerly a decrepit zone of barren shops and old men in baggy white trousers and embroidered vests who eked out a living mending clothing. But in the last few months, the market--indeed, much of Libya--has been outwardly transformed by a wave of changes being implemented by Kadafi.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


Let's talk about some lesser talked socialist(?) states


South Yemen




Were these countries really socialist or at least socialist orientated?What were their economies like? What were their relationships with USSR and USA? If they were socialist, why did they failed to do what socialist states are best at, like achieving 100% literacy and improving healthcare?



South Yemen, Benin and Madagascar were considered socialist-oriented countries by the USSR. Mauritania wasn't.

Mauritania under Moktar Ould Daddah nationalized the country's iron ore industry, that seems to have been the extent of his "socialism." In foreign affairs his most notorious act was to connive with Morocco to the detriment of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. As for relations with socialist countries, I think Mauritania was closer to China than the USSR.

Madagascar and Benin nationalized some parts of their economy, but neither was in a position to completely detach themselves from dependence on France and both faced pretty much stagnant economies during the 80s (especially Madagascar, which was screwed by the Iran-Iraq War since Iraq was no longer able to supply it with petroleum at cheap rates.)

As for South Yemen, to quote one work, "Given South Yemen's narrow resource base, the absence of known mineral wealth, and the small domestic market, the country's industrial potential is quite limited." As a result, the country actually had to build industry in order to nationalize it.

This was made harder by chronic political problems. I'll quote from "The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the the Third World":

>Moscow found South Yemen an almost constant headache. . . From 1969 to 1978 there was a prolonged power struggle between ‘Abd al-Fattah Isma’il, the staunchly pro-Soviet leader of the NLF, and Salim Rubai’ Ali, the more pro-Chinese head of state. In June 1978, with Soviet and Cuban assistance, Isma’il led a successful coup against Rubai’ Ali, who was executed on charges of plotting an armed coup of his own with the support of the West and Saudi Arabia.

>Just as the Politburo disliked dealing with the divided Yemeni regime, however, so the KGB despised some of its PDRY intelligence allies. A prime example was a senior Yemeni intelligence officer codenamed AREF, who was given a free holiday in 1978 aPost too long. Click here to view the full text.



Ohhh thank you

How did China, when they initiated the reforms and opened their economy for Capital Export to not get under the rule of neo colonialism? How did they manage not getting loans with contracts tied to them wich allowed the Capitalist countries to flood their markets with their own products and effectivly bleeding them out and making it impossible for China to build an economy of their own like Imperialist countries do it in Africa for example? How did China manage to capitalize on the investment and use it to strenghtem theirself?


File: 5e679cc939bafe0⋯.jpg (69.77 KB, 640x640, 1:1, chriac quote.jpg)

Do you know any mainstream sources on modern imperialism and colonialism? Especially if you know any sources on resource extraction of African nations.

All I could find wiki mentioning African countries suffering from debt, capital flight from developing countries to developed and France exploiting Africa 'bleeding Africa and feeding france'



File: b2cac0c9f527ed5⋯.png (2.79 MB, 1274x2413, 1274:2413, Marx.png)


Marx thread?

3 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Today, a lolbert on reddit told me that Marx forced the mother of his son to give his own child away because he was "disgusted at the thought to raise a bastard child from the working class". Is there any truth to this?



No. There's a whole article on where this claim comes from: https://www.marxists.org/subject/marxmyths/terrell-carver/article.htm



Of course, I knew it was wrong. Is there are single argument the right makes against Karl Marx that isn't dishonest/a lie/ignorant? It's so frustrating they get away with all this bullshit.



Ironically, Thomas Sowell (a bourgeois economist who for the most part behaves like a conservative hack) gave a fair assessment of the only legit criticism of Marx as a person:

"Crude and repulsive as Marx's and Engels' racial remarks to each other often were, there is no need to make them still worse by putting them in the same category as twentieth-century racism that has justified genocide. Marx's much criticized essay, 'On the Jewish Question,' for example, contains clear statements of his distaste for what he considered to be Jewish cultural or social traits, but in the end it was a defense of Jews' right to full political equality, written as a reply to a contemporary who had claimed that Jews should be required to give up their religion before receiving equal civil status. Marx hoped that the characteristics he disliked in Jews would fade away with the disappearance of capitalism, thus leading to 'abolishing the essence of Jewry'—but hardly in the sense of Hitler and the Nazis. Similarly, despite his anti-Negro stereotypes, during the American Civil War he conducted propaganda for the North and for the emancipation of slaves. Perhaps more indicative, he agreed to the marriage of his eldest daughter to a man known to have some Negro ancestry, after discouraging other suitors." (The Thomas Sowell Reader, 2011, pp. 185-186.)

Sowell claims he used to be a Marxist, which probably accounts for this bit of honesty.


File: f58a6ca5ef4e26c⋯.jpg (46.17 KB, 700x600, 7:6, Dwq2bGFUcAAAGRJ.jpg)

File: 361ea4d25726d0c⋯.jpg (321.56 KB, 493x622, 493:622, Enver and Nexhmije Hoxha i….jpg)


Ask questions about Albania and/or Enver Hoxha here.

288 posts and 86 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



Albania in the medieval ages was pretty unremarkable except for Skanderbeg, who lived in the 15th century and was known for his skill in repelling the Turkish invaders and trying to unify Albanians into a single kingdom. After he died Albania quickly became part of the Ottoman Empire. Most Albanians converted to Islam in part to evade heavy taxation, and during the ensuing centuries individual Albanians played prominent roles as Ottoman functionaries in far-off places like Egypt (Muhammad Ali Pasha) and Lebanon (Pashko Vasa.) Abdul-Hamid II's personal bodyguard was comprised of Albanians.

There were also subsequent attempts to carve out independent Albanian realms, notably under Ali Pasha Tepelena, but these were suppressed.

Albania itself was a backward region in a backward, decaying empire. Ottoman authorities actively discouraged any Albanian national sentiment, so that for instance Albanians didn't have a single alphabet until 1908 and it wasn't till 1972 that a single Albanian language was worked out.

In 1878, due to efforts by the Great Powers to interfere with territory inhabited by Albanians, a League of Prizren was established initially with Ottoman support. Abdyl Frashëri and other nationalists attempted to turn the League into an organ of Albanian self-government, which incurred the wrath of the Turks who suppressed it.

In 1912-13, amid the First Balkan War, conditions existed for the establishment of an independent Albanian state. Hence: >>11896



>I sincerely doubt it was more democratic than those countries, considering such absurdities as the 1970 election resulting in every single eligible voter in the entire country (all 1,097,123) voting in support of the government candidates, with the exception of one person who placed an invalid ballot.

Forgive me if this sounds idealist, but it seems hard to reconcile such "absurdities" with the idea that the leadership wanted to build a functioning socialist democracy. Doesn't this point at Hoxha and other officials being corrupted and simply clinging to personal power?



Hoxha did cling to personal power (he stayed in office till the day he died despite declining health, and the 1940s, 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s were filled with purges of real and imaginary foes), and national elections were largely without meaning (although this wasn't unique to Albania), but at the same time the leadership did try to guide a struggle against bureaucracy in the late 60s and early 70s, with predictably limited results. To quote from "The Albanian Cultural Revolution" by Nicholas C. Pano:

>In contrast to China's Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the "revolutionization" movement in Albania lacked sponaneity and never showed any signs of getting out of the control of the APL [i.e. PLA] leadership. . . .

>Between February and November 1966, the anti-bureaucratism campaign resulted in the reduction of the number of government ministries from 19 to 13, the abolition of military ranks (with the reintroduction of political commissars into the armed forces), the pruning of the bureaucracy, the transfer of bureaucrats from Tirana to outlying areas, and the decentralization of routine party and state operations.

>At the Fifth APL Congress (November 1-8, 1966), Hoxha announced that, as a result of the still incomplete campaign, some 15,000 former bureaucrats had already switched to productive work and several thousand other bureaucrats had taken positions in the provinces. He also indicated that the "revolutionary initiatives" undertaken during 1966 constituted only the first phase of the "revolutionization" process. . . .

>During 1968-69, the party also pursued its anti-bureaucratism campaign with a new movement for "working-class control." In a report to the APL Secretariat on Aprii 9, 1968, Hoxha indicated that this drive had two objectives: first, to use laborers as a counterpoise to the technocrats by creating workers' committees in enterprises; and second, to increase employees' responsibility for their own discipline and morale. In July 1968, the regime issued new directives further decentralizing economic planning and adminiPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


Do you know anything notable from socialist times? Any notable books, movies or consumer products



Outside of cigarettes, not really. Albania's most famous literary figure during the socialist period was Ismail Kadare, who subsequently became an anti-communist.

I don't think any Albanian movie gained any outside traction except "The Great Warrior Skanderbeg," a joint Soviet-Albanian production from 1953.

File: bdabd51c619e4ad⋯.jpg (119.16 KB, 453x640, 453:640, Stalin-diamond-embroidery-….jpg)


> New vid by FinBol


Was Stalin based?

Should Trots get shot?

What text by Stalin should be read and what moments in the history of Stalins USSR outline the development of a new (Socialist) mode of production?

12 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



I don't think anyone argues the majority of those who died in the Great Purges were guilty, but when it comes to the Moscow Trials and the trial of Tukhachevsky and other military officers there's plenty of people who defend them and argue Trotsky really did plot with the Nazis to dismember the USSR, Tukhachevsky really did conspire with the Nazis to organize a military coup, Bukharin really did involve himself in acts of sabotage, Kirov really was killed by a massive conspiracy, etc.

Also a lot of these people will acknowledge "yes lots of innocent people died during the Great Purges" but never specify who. If you bring up someone wrongly killed, like David Riazanov or Osip Piatnitsky or innumerable other examples, in my experience they'll be reluctant to acknowledge it.



>when it comes to the Moscow Trials and the trial of Tukhachevsky and other military officers there's plenty of people who defend them and argue Trotsky really did plot with the Nazis to dismember the USSR, Tukhachevsky really did conspire with the Nazis to organize a military coup, Bukharin really did involve himself in acts of sabotage, Kirov really was killed by a massive conspiracy, etc.

But primary source evidence (both Soviet and non-Soviet) would suggest this was in fact the case. Again, regardless of whether innocent people were killed we basically are left with the alternative of declaring all Soviet state evidence from that era as invalid for no reason at all. Looking at the primary sources presented by Furr, it actually impressed by the tenacity and thoroughness of Soviet investigators—as was Davies.

I think it should be noted that if you dismiss the Moscow Trials whole hog then your basically left with the left-anti-communist version of the Kennedy assassination or some other similar vast counter-conspiracy—Stalin initiated a vast terror for no reason and then covered it up despite punishing those he felt responsible for the excesses of purges and those he thought were really guilty.

It just doesn’t make sense. The Trotskyist-Rightist approach to the Moscow Trials mirrors that of JFK conspiracy theorists to the Warren Commission in that there is the assumption that state evidence can not be believed because a suppression has been carried it out on behalf of the people in power and likewise, few if any ever recognize that their theories and those of their fellow travelers are nowhere close to being as systematic as the initial state report. It even mirrors it in the sense that JFK conspiracists declared later Kennedy Reports (House Committee on Assasinations) to be the final word when evidence later came out to support the initial conclusions of the Warren investigation; likewise, later Soviet reports that were declared the last word have been found lacking in light of new evidence.

As for who was actually guilty and who was actually innocent—we aren’t at the point where we can Post too long. Click here to view the full text.



>But primary source evidence (both Soviet and non-Soviet) would suggest this was in fact the case.

Where's the evidence? 80 years have passed and we have nothing from the German, Polish, British, or other archives substantiating anything in the Moscow Trials. There's not even anything from the Soviet archives except more "confessions."

>as was Davies.

Joseph E. Davies observed the Moscow Trials and felt the defendants acted genuine. That was his "proof" (together with the subsequent victory of the USSR against Nazi Germany) that the charges of the Moscow Trials were legit. There were many other people who covered the Trials and considered the behavior of the defendants absurd and unbelievable.

Not to mention that, again, close to a century has gone by. Proof of such a wide-ranging conspiracy clearly needs to go beyond a diplomat saying "well they didn't look coerced to me and the charges sound credible." That attitude was justifiable back in the day. It isn't now.

>Stalin initiated a vast terror for no reason and then covered it up despite punishing those he felt responsible for the excesses of purges and those he thought were really guilty.

Stalin initiated a vast terror because he sincerely believed there was a gigantic conspiracy to overthrow him. That's what Soviet archives indicate.

The irony is that Yezhov, who was indeed punished for excesses, was one of those whom the Moscow Trials defendants were accused of diabolically plotting to kill. Of course, when Yezhov was arrested it was claimed he was in cahoots with Bukharin and Co. all along. Similarly, Politburo member Postyshev was supposedly one of those whom the defendants plotted to assassinate (according to the first Moscow Trial in 1936), but Postyshev was himself "exposed" in 1938 and shot and the matter of supposedly being the target of a dastardly plot never came up again.

There's no evidence for 99% of the Moscow Trials charges. The bPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at



>There's not even anything from the Soviet archives except more "confessions."

Yes, but the thing is is that the confessions are mutually-corroborating without showing signs that they were orchestrated by some grand master-mind. As Furr has amply showed at length, defendants withheld information, engaged in misdirection, refused to talk on some issues while confessing on others and were often doggedly insistent on the details of the crimes they confessed to. On the latter point, one cohort of Trotsky's was insistent that they had made contact with German military intelligence in 1922 and corrected his interrogator on this point, why? It was still high-treason regardless the penalty would be the same why quibble over such a small detail if you had been bullied into confessing in what amounted to a "show trial"?


It does actually speak to something that a legal expert observed it and found it credible whereas the vast majority of its critics neither observed, nor typically even have legal experience.

>There's no evidence for 99% of the Moscow Trials charges.

Is this the whole circumstantial evidence isn't actually evidence meme again? Very rarely are convictions secured on the basis of "physical evidence" alone even under bourgeois judicial systems. Circumstantial evidence can be actually more convincing than direct evidence when there is enough of it. Hell, the prosecution of Timothy McVeigh consisted mostly of circumstantial evidence to cite a famous example.

>but of semi-fascist Poland and Nazi Germany.

Funny that you bring that up because there is the Arao document, the Benes note and the debriefing of Lyushkov as related by his Japanese handlers. Given that the Soviets had access to these it seems likely to me that they weren't actually looking to defend the Trials post-Stalin. Not exactly the same as your claim "no evidence" and to wit I think its worth noting what Gerald Posner wrote about the Kennedy Assassination--if there was a CIA plot to kill Kennedy thPost too long. Click here to view the full text.



>defendants withheld information, engaged in misdirection, refused to talk on some issues while confessing on others and were often doggedly insistent on the details of the crimes they confessed to.

The narrative to be unveiled at the Moscow Trials evidently came into being gradually, it wasn't all written up in Stalin's office on day one. Nor is it surprising that people being interrogated would confess to certain charges and not others they'd consider absurd, e.g. Bukharin during the Trials confessed to certain things but rejected that he supposedly plotted to kill Lenin.

There's no proof in multiple people with multiple ways of getting confessions extracted from them (mostly via torture, long-term confinement, arrest of relatives, etc.) all confessing to greater or lesser involvement in a conspiracy that has no independent evidence of its existence and, even when presented by the prosecution, contains numerous inconsistencies and provably false claims.

>It does actually speak to something that a legal expert observed it and found it credible whereas the vast majority of its critics neither observed, nor typically even have legal experience.

But again, finding something credible isn't a substitute for proof. Considering the immense scale of the alleged conspiracy and how much time has elapsed with little to show for it, Davies' views aren't really relevant nowadays.

I'd also note that in an April 4, 1938 letter to WH Press Secretary Stephen Early, Davies claimed that practically all those who attended the third Trial agreed "there was a great deal that was untrue" even if the Trial itself "established that there had been a great deal of plotting on the part of many of these defendants to overthrow Stalin."

Being a representative of the bourgeoisie, Davies made a mistake common to ruling class writers. He argues in Mission to Moscow (p. 36) "that practically all the principal defendants were bred from early youth in an atmosphere of conspiracy against established order. . . Conspiracy was bred Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at

File: 20626f63f1b3bcb⋯.png (8.36 KB, 200x200, 1:1, Hammer_and_sickle_red_on_t….png)


I've made a few steps for how to gain power:

1. Make loads of propagandist. Make videos, Posters, Print out fucktons of leaflets, etc. Do not stop for whatever reason, the propaganda must flow. Start by putting up a poster in A nearby billboard for example. Do not hold back.

2. Make a political party

Make a shitty political party and invite your friends. Continue the stream of propoganda, but orientate it towards this party

3. Merge with larger parties.

Merge with other tiny communist parties. Gain more members, and merge your ideologies. Combat Sectarianism. Keep on merging till you have a reasonably big party

4. Get shit done

Make homeless shelters, give money to charity, give free first aid courses. Help the proletariat and expand your cancer-like growth. Continue the propaganda stream.

5. Get ready

Once you have a reasonably big party, stock up on supplies. Build bunkers, and plan your moves. Purge Infilitrators, continue the spread of propoganda and expand your Paramilitary.

6. Revolution

Begin by enciting riots. Get well-placed allies in the military to enact your plans, And Engage in open fighting with the establishment. Learn strategy, and Build more bunkers to hide you and your party from Bombers.

7 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.



>bumping a nearly 6 month old thread




This trap needs to go FULL CONVERSION



You're telling us what to do but not how to do it.



>Print out fucktons of leaflets

okay then TROT



I should make a video game like this.

File: 1e9d6d63055699d⋯.png (312.83 KB, 563x378, 563:378, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 6f0dc55bd85f94f⋯.png (488.36 KB, 668x374, 334:187, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 08c4143ae65d100⋯.png (441.82 KB, 560x372, 140:93, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 65b73b1a823ca1c⋯.png (449.22 KB, 500x371, 500:371, ClipboardImage.png)


What does /marx/ think of the Economic Freedom Fighters?

For those of you perhaps unfamiliar with the EFF or what it stands for, the EFF is a self-declared Marxist-Leninist-Fanonist political party formed in opposition to the dominant African National Congress and lead by former ANC Youth League president Julius Malema. Though a newer political party, it received 8.1% of the vote in the 2016 local and municipal elections and gained 761 council seats nationwide.

As indicated by the name, the EFF places the core of its focus on economic freedom, linking this issue with a persistent colonial domination in South Africa:

>twenty years after the attainment of formal political freedom, the black people of South Africa still live in absolute mass poverty ... and vestiges of apartheid and colonial economic patterns, ownership and control remain intact despite the attainment of political freedom by the former liberation movement

>The political power that was transferred to the black majority through inclusive elections in 1994 was never transformed into economic freedom as the majority of Africans remain on the margins of society as unemployed, underemployed or discriminated-against in their employment, while those who held economic, social and political power since the colonial period continue to enjoy economic, social, and professional privileges.

>Economic Freedom Fighters … should be an economic emancipation movement, which should be mass based, associate and relate constantly with the grassroots and community movements, anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist and most importantly contest political power. Economic Freedom Fighters will therefore be an independent economic emancipation movement which will contest political power in all spheres of government.


The EFF Uniform

EFF members in national and provincial parliaments have adopted red overalls, hard constructiPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


Julius Malema

Malema came from the ANC after being expelled in 2012, is not without some eyebrow raising issues:

>As Julius Malema moved up and down the back of an old truck which was being used a stage, the silver buckle of his Louis Vuitton shoes gleamed in the sun. [...] "You should not compete over material things. Just because you own a leather jacket you think you have arrived or just because you own a Carvella (shoes). We should compete about how many qualifications do you have," he told his supporters in Botshabelo, outside Bloemfontein. [...] "You don't have houses. You don't have water and electricity. It is because you've been voting for the same party and expecting different results. I'm here to open your eyes." [...] In addition to promising free education, higher wages and social grants, Malema promised his Free State followers that politicians would, under EFF rule, be treated like any other citizens. "Why should the state provide housing and cars to politicians? These people get paid like ordinary people. They must buy their own houses and their own cars." Malema later told journalists that all EFF leaders would live "ordinary" lives. "We are all committing to living a life of ordinary people. We are living it today," he said before racing away in a Mercedes-Benz S350.


>The gap between Malema’s rhetoric and dress has long invited critiques of the divisive politician as a champagne socialist. In 2010, when Malema was still making his name as an orator in the ANC’s Youth League, his Gucci suits and $24,000 Breitling watch often clashed with his populist message, which advocated for the nationalization of the country’s privately owned mines and the redistribution of its wealth and land.

>When Malema cast his plans for nationalizing mines as a continuation of the Mandela family's legacy, Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, Nelson Mandela's ex-wife, responded that she was not, like Malema, the type of populist who “exploits” the poor Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: c992210f68dc197⋯.png (15.74 KB, 234x192, 39:32, ClipboardImage.png)

Black First, Land First

The BLF is a pan-Africanist and revolutionary Socialist off-shoot of the EFF founded in 2015 after the expulsion of EFF Andile Mngxitama, the party's founder. Currently it holds no elected positions as far as I can tell. The party is specifically Sankarist in orientation:

>We pledge to build a revolutionary movement that is Sankarist in belief and practice – following and honouring the revolutionary legacy of Thomas Sankara.

Every elected official from their party must take the "Thomas Sankara Oath", demanding that signatories follow the example of Sankara in public service


>To struggle by any means necessary to realize the liberation of black people from white supremacy, racism, patriarchy and capitalism.

>To establish a fully responsive decolonized, black first, socialist society that builds and maintains a revolutionary culture with an internationalist outlook, whilst centering black experiences and desires

>To create conditions for total freedom of the black majority and by extension an anti-capitalist, anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti the oppression of the LGBTQI peoples and anti-imperialist society.

>To participate in the international struggle for the complete overthrow of imperialism, colonialism, racism and all other forms of oppression and discrimination so as to establish fully responsive black first socialist governments throughout the world.

>To promote the fight against tribalism, regionalism, religious and cultural intolerance, oppression of women and oppression of all other gendered persons, towards the total eradication of these forms of oppression and tendencies and through the realization of Black Consciousness and radical Pan Africanism.


Interestingly from my cursory overview (I didn't research this party as much), the BLF seems to focus more on aPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: badbc51cde39b0d⋯.jpg (60 KB, 386x687, 386:687, d'avila.jpg)


Thank you, for your effort comrade. Reading though the second article you posted we see that:

>We have seen already how EFF has shown traits of revisionism when it opposed a revolutionary struggle based on the logic that all white owned land in SA is stolen land and must be returned to the black majority without payment of compensation to the land thieves as a basis for the resolution of the land question and by extension the resolution of all other questions in theories of building society along black centered socialist lines.

In fact, Malema can be found echoing this same point, so I would say the alleged difference is more apparent than real:

<"No white person," he says, "is a rightful owner of land in South Africa and the whole of the African continent." As far as he is concerned, whites unhappy with expropriation of land without compensation can "go to hell".

The second part is interesting, because it can quite frankly only be read as a racist statement. Let me demonstrate why, in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis Portuguese workers were allowed to emigrate to Angola in vast numbers, now the colonial history is in the background of course, but these particular crop of workers had nothing to do with it--if a white worker in Angola buys a house is this illegitimate? If one fails to reject private property it can only really be concluded that those who hold private property can only rule that property is illegitimate on a racial basis.

Let's move on, of course, we have the problem of the Afrikaners and the rest of the African white population that makes up a combined 5 million people at the very least. In South Africa, we all know about the problem of the white-owned farms, and the question is what is to be done? The answer should be that all land must be brought into the state-domain or the farmers should quite frankly be left alone. Why? Because, big farms are more efficient, land-reform is only desirable when either the power of an aristocracy is broken or the rent from land is brought into the public sector via tax or abolished altogether by state-ownership.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.





-----* http://gnm.li/iH *----

File: bbaaa4e073c8744⋯.jpg (34.35 KB, 342x515, 342:515, 1788282388.jpg)


if people were deprived of individuality and ambition, the world could become a better place. There could be a world government that he

would provideto the world of stability. People would be happy without ever wanting something they could not get. Having a similar worldview and mentality, ride

the same cars, living in the same homes or apartments, having the same entertainment, living in a state of blissful ignorance about

passions and strong emotions could be so conditioned that they would practically be unable to act otherwise than they should.

When reading the book "Brave New World ", I always wonder: what exactly is wrong with the world described there? Wars, hunger and diseases have stopped.

Social hierarchy still exists, but those at the bottom are genetically designed so that they do not bother them, they even enjoy what they are. Blessed soma

it is enough for everyone, there is a joyful consumption and freedom of manners. Few visionaries get deported, but so what? New ideas, books or inventions

they would only destroy the previous harmony built with such difficulty. It does not sound like an dystopia, rather the opposite of dystopia.

If our goal is universal happiness and security, the individual's freedom seems to be a temporary, unsuccessful experiment that is an obstacle to his reached.

16 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



>Only a brainlet of low intelligence is unable to shift through the numbers and figure out who is who.



>sees something disagreeable

>calls poster a jew

... see, you have more in common with /pol/ than you'd like to admit.


>morality means naivety and stupidity.

Basing anything you do on "morality" is pretty naive. Moral statements can't be true or false because morality can't make objective claims. Morality simply means whatever you want it to mean.

>From my experience I would say that intelligent people are also better

in finding excuses and justification for explicitly immoral activities. I would bet that high IQ favors "soullessness"

Low IQ people tend to make for good ICE agents and cops because they tend to be extremely good at following orders, no matter what they are. They often fall for reactionary ideologies and beliefs, like Christian conservatism and fascism. Also, the nickname for the contemporary GOP is the "Party of Stupid.



The current cooperation of internationalist organizations, multinational corporations and corrupt local governments works almost without interruption. With such

legislation as now in America, sooner or later the largest corporations will take over the authorities themselves. And in practice simply

we will change the world ruled by states into the world ruled by corporations. While at least in principle, they are supposed to care for their citizens, for

that matter corporations only care about their own interest, specifically the interest of a small group of people at the very top. Corporations will no longer

have to put up with the government, only they will become government themselves.

Ordinary people are already getting less and less needed, after all, an ordinary factory in Europe or in America can be moved to another country with cheaper ones

workers somewhere in Asia, about the future automation of production not to mention - the robot will be able to work 24 hours / 7 days in the week and will not

ask for raise. The situation will probably end up on benefits allowing vegetation for unnecessary masses (cheaper than the huge police). The US is already going

this way,but in his own way - USA has largest number of prisoners in the world, but the result is the same - the state maintaining vegetation of unnecessary

population. There is nothing to please. People they will soon become unnecessary, at least the majority. That will be the final stage of capitalism.



>so much worse are those who have empathy at a very high level, they understand other people, they can

>im sympathizers, but at the same time they are egoists. This is just a destructive connection, because such a person reads you and maybe even feels what you,

>but also thanks to this, it will be easier to use situations to your advantage to achieve what they want. He understands your feelings, but he just has them deep

>in the ass and only he counts. I gained certainty in contact with such people, they can immediately change the versions of facts, testimonies, and in the

>event of lack of possibility of manipulation , they are even able to physical assault, when there are no witnesses.

As a highly sensitive person who feels too much, I reject your classification of people like myself. My empathy is what stops me from working in my own interest. The manipulation you speak of, if I am honest with myself, I'm capable of it. I just don't try to manipulate others because I have no personal ambitions. What I want is for everyone to be OK, and I can't personally enrich myself while there's so much pain and suffering in the world that is a direct result of people trying to enrich themselves. Everyone tries to manipulate others to some degree. When the salesman is offering youba discount to sell you something, that's manipulation. Do you think every salesperson is a psychopath? I guess they'd have to be to an extent.

File: c62e7f34225e649⋯.jpg (350.24 KB, 573x773, 573:773, Untitled.jpg)


Old thread: http://oxwugzccvk3dk6tj.onion/marx/res/8560.html

As the title says. I figure a general "ask me questions" thread is good. Can be questions about socialism, US history, the Marxist position on religion, or whatever else.

746 posts and 109 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


From /leftypol/

the Japanese and South Koreans carefully studied the soviet education system and planned economy and used that to Great Effect. It's why Japan is a leader in education systems by learning from and maintaining the old efficient and neat stuff of soviet schools.


Do you know any more articles or information about positive Soviet influence on first world countries?



I do not. I know Chiang Kai-shek and his son did (as you presumably know as well),


>Do you know any more articles or information about positive Soviet influence on first world countries?

One that springs to mind is James Baldwin writing,

>Most of the Negroes I know do not believe that this immense concession [Brown v. Board of Education] would ever have been made if it had not been for the competition of the Cold War, and the fact that Africa was clearly liberating herself and therefore had, for political reasons, to be wooed by the descendants of her former masters.


File: 0fd3a2e516956d0⋯.jpg (63.62 KB, 850x400, 17:8, pretty cool quote.jpg)

File: 136f4ad30f6deb2⋯.jpg (92.83 KB, 850x400, 17:8, coold quote by Deng.jpg)

You gave good summary on Deng Xiaoping here >>10321

Could you give a similar, but a bit a bit longer ( couple of sentences) analysis of Mao's and Deng's life, and what they did, and why they did what they did. Especially why Mao was so far left, and why Deng made market reforms.


Was the creation of the Berlin Wall justified? Also, I was thinking the Soviet Union shouldn't have extracted so many resources from the DDR so early, since it caused many people to flee and the Warsaw Pact lost out on them as an investment; a little resource reallocation doesn't seem justified for having so many talented people leave the bloc, or is it?



I can't help but feel you're asking me all these questions because you have to write essays for high school or college.

Deng made market reforms because he saw that the Cultural Revolution undermined economic growth and also saw that the USSR's economic system by the mid-70s clearly wasn't doing too well either.

I don't think there's any explanation as to why Mao swerved to the left. He seemed to legitimately believe the Cultural Revolution was necessary to prevent the overthrow of the proletariat by "capitalist roaders."

His rhetoric up till the Great Leap Forward had been relatively mild. Ironically, one of his most enthusiastic supporters in the West during the 1940s was Earl Browder.


On the Berlin Wall, see: >>10511

The USSR did intend to extract reparations from the whole of Germany, but the US, UK and France said no, so the GDR bore it all.

File: 9a682cd0c61adb4⋯.jpg (12.6 KB, 220x210, 22:21, 220px-Molotov_with_Ribbent….jpg)


I've been reading the article in wikipedia about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, and it mentions that there were diplomatic talks about the joining of the USSR to the Axis powers. Is there any truth to this claim? To what extend did the Soviets engage with Nazi Germany?

1 post omitted. Click reply to view.



Other than fighting proxy war against Nazi Germany in Spain, fighting border war with Japan and supporting Chinese against Japanese aggression, what other proxy or diplomatic wars did Soviet Union fight against Nazi Germany.



>what other proxy or diplomatic wars did Soviet Union fight against Nazi Germany.

In regard to Czechoslovakia: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html

Also, Soviet historians made the following arguments:

* In 1940 the semi-fascist regimes in the Baltics sought to ally with Nazi Germany until the USSR intervened against them.

* Finland's rulers refused to agree to enhance the security of Leningrad because their intention was to profit off of a Nazi invasion of the USSR, hence the war with Finland was also seen as an anti-Hitler effort.

* When the Nazis invaded Poland, there was the possibility of them using the absence of a Polish government (which had fled into Romania) as a pretext to occupy the entire territory of the former Polish state to the detriment of the USSR's security, so Soviet historians argued that the Red Army went into Western Ukraine and Western Byelorussia to prevent this from happening.

* The liberation of Bessarabia was seen as part of the struggle against Hitler as well.

Post last edited at




Offering alliance with the west in the 1938's a good example. mainstream people call the rest fascism or occupation.



In addition to that work, the USSR put out many other books in subsequent years on its struggle to prevent the outbreak of WWII as well as discussing Soviet foreign policy in 1939-1941, e.g.

* https://archive.org/details/WhoHelpedHitler

* https://archive.org/details/SovBritFrenchTalks

* https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.129500 ("USSR: For Peace Against Aggression, 1933-1941")

* https://archive.org/details/DiplomaticBattlesBeforeWWII

* https://archive.org/details/BeforeTheNaziInvasion

File: bec269498242591⋯.jpg (64.04 KB, 447x601, 447:601, 1460131773459-1.jpg)


Questions about China today and in the past

55 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



Strategic Anti-Chinese propaganda is being spread the same way Anti-Americanism was in certain European countries or Anti-USSR was spread in the West in general.



It seems like a Big Brother scheme regardless of the motive tbh.






Great post anon.



What an inspired, intelligent response. Bravissimo, Comrade.

File: 39333c4e02de75f⋯.jpg (158.48 KB, 1174x738, 587:369, bolshevik-jews.jpg)


How does /marx/ respond to the talking point of the Nazis whenever talking about Marxism as some "Jewish conspiracy", then citing that the Soviet Union's government officials was made up of 95% jews. They often like to double down on Trotsky as well for some reason even though he was purged from the party thanks to Stalin. What is the official /marx/ist response to "Jewish Bolshevism" which Nazis often like to cite as anything to the left of Adolf Hitler, including moderate liberalism.

205 posts and 72 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 235b6f2b1709293⋯.gif (506.83 KB, 575x420, 115:84, cringe.gif)




I know /pol/ are anime Nazis but they really need to stop basing their political beliefs of Evangelion



It reminds me more of Rahxephon mixed with Morrowind’s Dagoth Ur plus that Voltaire quote. This is your mind on /pol/

>It is revealed that the RahXephon was created by Ernst von Bähbem as a tool for re-tuning the world. This re-tuning would involve the RahXephon joining with a special person who has the potential to accomplish the re-tuning, referred to as an instrumentalist. The Mu refer to the robot as "Xephon," only adding the honorific of "Rah" near the end of the series when Ayato is ready to tune the world.




Kerensky wasn't jew, his father was russian, mother german

The "jewishness" of Kerensky is also one of the myths made by Black hundreds



Yes, that's the point made by the author of the article, hence why he wrote:

>Indeed, the Provisional Government was frequently labelled by antisemites as ‘Jewish’, despite the fact that there were no Jews in the government. One arresting illustration of the extraordinary degree to which antisemitism could take flight from reality is captured when Kerensky, leaving the Winter Palace by car on the night of the Bolshevik insurrection, noticed that someone had painted in huge letters across the palace wall: ‘Down with the Jew Kerensky, Long Live Trotsky!’

File: 1aba33ae097dc87⋯.jpg (30.71 KB, 258x300, 43:50, 1-karl-marx-russian-school.jpg)


Seeming as /leftypol/ is useless for the this kind of thread, this will be the designated Capital reading thread. The gist is that people new to Marx, like me, will be able to ask here questions specifically regarding the volumes of Capital.

Starting on page 63 (in the PDF arranged by marxists.org), I run into this long and confusing paragraph:

>In a given country there take place every day at the same time, but in different localities, numerous one-sided metamorphoses of commodities, or, in other words, numerous sales and numerous purchases. The commodities are equated beforehand in imagination, by their prices, to definite quantities of money.

So far so good.

>And since, in the form of circulation now under consideration, money and commodities always come bodily face to face, one at the positive pole of purchase, the other at the negative pole of sale,

>it is clear that the amount of the means of circulation required, is determined beforehand by the sum of the prices of all these commodities. As a matter of fact, the money in reality represents the quantity or sum of gold ideally expressed beforehand by the sum of the prices of the commodities. The equality of these two sums is therefore self-evident.

What exactly did he mean by "determined beforehand" and "ideally"? As some platonic sum of prices that should be if it's converted to money or the literal equality of value of the the amount of prices to the circulating currency? Judging by the paragraph on the next page I'm inclined to think of the former.

>We know, however, that, the values of commodities remaining constant, their prices vary with the value of gold (the material of money), rising in proportion as it falls, and falling in proportion as it rises. Now if, in consequence of such a rise or fall in the value of gold, the sum of the prices of commodities fall or rise, the quantity of money in currency must fall or rise to the same extent.

>The change in the quantity of the circulating medium is, in this case, it is true, caused by the money itself, yet not in virtue of its function as a medium of circulation, but of its function as a measurPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

106 posts and 21 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



>This paragraph seems unintelligible to me.

The paragraph right before that one is about how under capitalism, an independent producer with his own land is basically his own worker and boss and landlord, and how this seems to show how capitalism is natural, since he can still reckon in the typical capitalist categories (though it's a bit weird): his salary and profit and rental income. But the reason these categories still make sense to the independent guy is because, even while not having a boss or landlord above him, he is still living in the capitalist class society. A post-capitalist society wouldn't have profit and capitalist investment, but it would still have a notion of what's necessary to cover the physical minimum, and that some work should go into a safety buffer and developing technology.



<...ingeniously developed communism of the Peruvians...

>Anyone got a source on this? What does he mean and where can I read on it?

Google provides some articles, and when you skim over the Wikipedia article about the Incan economy, you can see:

1. The Incas had a centrally planned economy with no domestic exchange, just foreign trade

2. The Incas had labour vouchers which they accounted for with labour time, they made knots in strings hanging from a central building in the village for every single hour of work done



>>(Note for later elaboration.) A specific form of credit: It is known that when money serves as a means of payment instead of a means of purchase, the commodity is alienated, but its value is realised only later. If payment is not made until after the commodity has again been sold, this sale does not appear as the result of the purchase; rather it is through this sale that the purchase is realised. In other words, the sale becomes a means of purchase.

IIRC Marx distinguishes means of purchase/circulation and means of payment in that means of purchase/circulation is the term for direct real-time correspondence between paying for an item AND receiving the ownership right AND physically obtaining it AND (I think) using it, consuming it. Means of payment is the term for just the money changing hands and other aspects can happen in a delayed way. So...

>when money serves as a means of payment

The money changes hands, but the thing is not immediately consumed on the spot.

>the commodity is alienated

The item changes ownership legally, perhaps also physically, but we are not talking about consuming it.

>but its value is realised only later

It is only used later, it probably hasn't reached the person that will actually consume it (or if we are talking about a machine that is used in production, the machine hasn't reached the business that will actually physically make use of it).

>If payment is not made until after the commodity has again been sold, this sale does not appear as the result of the purchase

Person A gives ownership rights of an item to B (perhaps the item also moves physically from A to B). If payment by B to A is not made until B has sold the item to C, B selling it to C does not appear as the result of B buying it from A...

>rather it is through this sale that the purchase is realised

...rather it is through B selling to C, C being the one actually using/consuming the item, that B's purchase from A is realized. Value is only realized inPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


Is there any good summary of Marx's rent theories? His chapters on the subject are extremely confusing in vol. 3.

Has any Marxist economist expanded on the subject of rent from Marx?

Seriously, his theories of rent are almost never discussed. Neither for not against.


File: 97474f947eb8564⋯.pdf (1.56 MB, Rent Theory and Working Cl….pdf)


I've attached an article "Rent Theory and Working Class Strategy" from 1977 that goes over different theories on rent (Ricardo, George, Proudhon, Marx). The rent on residential real estate in the form of mortgages of course played a central role in the panic of 2007-09... but "real estate" is a hybrid economic category which involves both the value and price of the buildings as commodities and the rents of the land on which the buildings are built which are two different categories mixed together under the title of "real estate."

Some excerpts from the article:

>Absolute rent can reduce surplus value by forcing up the value of labor power, as well as taking part of the surplus value produced from the capitalists. (Differential rent only does the latter). Monopoly of land is thus a problem for the capitalists, who, Marx suggested, might take to the sort of scheme suggested by Henry George, nationalizing land or taxing rents and using the proceeds for the benefit of their own class. Such a reform could abolish absolute rent, forcing all land into use. But it would only transform differential rent from a payment to a landed class to one to an organ of the bourgeoisie. The reform might be urged on labor as a means of reducing food prices, but gains from this reform would, in Marx’s view, be limited because capital could later seek to capture the rest of the benefit through wage reductions. These would be possible because the reform would do nothing to alter the primary way in which land ownership bound labor, namely by preventing the free access of labor to one of the means of production. The British enclosures had first enforced this separation, which was necessary to capitalism. George’s reforms - or the credit reforms of Proudhon which would redistribute land somewhat from a landed class to small businessmen, would not end this situation.

>Engels adds the point that the ownership of housing fails to provide workers with access to the means of production (the owner of a home is still dependent on wages for survival), and that it also ties workers down and divides their interests, tying their small investments to the fate of particular pieces of pPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Delete Post [ ]
Previous [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
| Catalog | Nerve Center | Cancer
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / animu / cafechan / clang / leftyb / milkers / vg / wmafsex ]