What are people on here communists and not anarchists?

I just want to here the perspectives of people on here?

if a society becomes moneyless how are things made and bought? like how are material things produced if you need to obtain resources and workers to make them? something like a toothbrush for example, it has to be made somehow and purchased somehow. would resources and materials be obtained for free? would those objects be made for free? how does it work? sorry if i'm not making much sense i just don't really know how to word my question. what i'm trying to ask is basically how does production of resources work? if someone wants to buy a car, is the car free? are the resources the car is made from free? the builders of the car do it for free? how does it work?

Hi im thinking about joining the american party of labor, but are they feds?

Specifically, why is it that under historical communist societies, ownership by the people has almost always immediately turned into ownership by the state, instead of ownership by those who are physically doing the work?

To me, especially after reading Lenin’s Socialism and War, Ukraine is obviously a victim of Russia who Leftists should support.

My understanding of Lenin is that the structural relationship between the two warring parties is the determiner. In which case, the Russian state is clearly trying to reinstate its colonial ambitions over Ukraine, something which all leftists should oppose and show critical support to the Ukrainian state.

America, in particular has done hideous crimes. Killing blacks when they reach for their keys, waterboarding "terrorists", raping women and eating them in Epstein Island, legalising marijuana, among even more immoral crimes committed by the government. What makes them qualified to criticize China's camps, which actually contains some muslim terrorists that committed public attacks?

Reading about Cuba, Rojava, China and other Socialist Political Leaders placing heavy emphasis on envrionmental protection at the heart of the cause encompassing public good got me thinking on what Left Communists of different flavours think about it today?

I always viewed it as the environment being a public good that enriches the working people, which might otherwise price out the working class when society needs to invest in special tools or services to break even with the bourgeosie.

For example, people living in more polluted and congested cities are likely to get more sick on average than rich people in better neighbourhoods; quality of life of visitng the beaches, hills etc. becomes locked behind people who can travel to it, instead of cheaper options nearby; and so on.

I know left communism genuinely has an orthodox stance on focusing only on capital relations, and I guess social praxis is more Gramscian. Is there any analysis or school of thought that combines orthodoxy with contemporary problems?

Mao Zedong was important for chinas growth, but i do not agree with china being primarily state-capitalist. If without outside intervention would've they still grown to the scale that china has today?

Basically what it says in the title. The Manifesto places Proudhon's System of Economic Contradictions as an example of bourgeois socialism rather than petty bourgeois socialism. But Marx seems to have been much more consistent about talking about Proudhon as having a petty bourgeois mindset. And he doesn't explain his reasoning in the Manifesto.

In a Socialist State, (as far as I've understood, please correct if incorrect) the worker is given a wage based on the value of their labour to the society/state. (E.g. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution.)

This results in wealth inequality as a result of income differences, stemming from the difference in the value of labour to a society.

Q1. Would this not lead to long term wealth accumulation if wealth is inherited?

1b. If so how would one prevent inequalities regarding opportunities from arising as a result of Wealth Accumulation?

Q2. What would inheritance of personal property look like in a Communist state?

Q3. How would one determine which items are passed down as a measure of Wealth Accumulation and which for other means? (e.g. Sentimental reasons like family heirlooms)

I gotta do body text I guess or something. Don't need it though.

I host a library tour show on YT where I film bookshelf tours with academics and other serious readers who have built unusually deep collections around a particular subject.

I’m looking for one or more people with a well-stocked library focused on Communism, Marxism, Leninism, labor history, anti-colonial movements, Leftist theory, radical publishing, and/or related subjects who would be interested in giving me a tour of their collection with the goal of educating viewers on the most important and interesting books in your library.

If you're potentially interested or want to discuss, please leave a comment below and I can DM you, or feel free to DM me for more info including examples. Not looking to self promote here so I'm not linking to the channel or specific videos but you can look up my username on YT and you'll find my channel easily.

Thank you!

In the second section of the Communist Manifesto (1848), Marx and Engels provide a list of measures that are generally applicable to most advanced countries to strengthen the proletariat and help to revolutionize the mode of production. These are measures which can be implemented today in capitalist countries, but will help to revolutionize the mode of production into communism.

This list of measures includes this:

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

However, in the Demands of the Communist Party of Germany released a month later, we have the mere call for the "Limitation of inheritance."

Two decades later, Bakunin helped to found the International Alliance of Socialist Democracy, and are permitted into the International Workingmen's Association (aka the First International), and Marx wants to attack their program (writing these marginal notes on their first draft). The Program of the Alliance included this point:

Above all, it [the Alliance] stands for the final and total abolition of classes and the political, economic and social equalization of individuals of either sex, and, to this end, it demands above all the abolition of the right of inheritance, so that every man’s possessions may in future be commensurate to his output...

Marx seems to have taken special objection to this, identifying it with Saint-Simon, leading him to introduce the topic of inheritance to the next International Congress. Ahead of this, Marx prepared the Report to the General Council of the IWMA on the Right of Inheritance where he denounces calls to abolish inheritance, instead saying it will go away on its own once private property is abolished. Calls to abolish inheritance are described as "false in theory, and reactionary in practice." Instead, Marx says we should only focus on taxing inheritance and regulating its more arbitrary testamentary forms.

Bakunin provided this response to the Report as well too, noting how attacking the right to inheritance will help to undermine property, helping to achieve its abolition.

The issue I see is that Bakunin's stance here seem to be more what Marx was saying in the Manifesto. So I'm wondering whether it's possible that Marx changed his mind on it, though I'm not sure if he ever explicitly addressed this.

Is there any additional information that could help clarify what happened here? Did Marx change his mind? Is the Manifesto mistranslated here? What happened?

Any additional info would be appreciated.

Whilst the primary principle of governance in Lenin's works is Democratic centralism, which demands in its nature a system for the election and recall of the proletarian representative in the state leadership, the representatives in the Government of the USSR even following the end of the civil war in 1922 were elected only nominally after a choice by the government, and couldn't be effectively held accountable by the voting proletariat. (If any of this is a misapprehension please correct me in the comments)

I understand this to be such that to an extent this policy was used by the governing class, now within the party as a means of preserving its own power, while justified and legitimised in part by a resistance to counter-revolutionary forces. To this I have a few questions:

1. To what extent was the policy of the Soviet Government at the time to preserve its own power as an example of bourgeois counter - revolution Vs an effort to preserve the gains of the Bolshevik revolution against bourgeois elements which lingered in society following the revolution?

2. In attempting to construct a communist state how can the state apparatus be constructed in such a way that, it resists corruption from within through counter-revolutionary forces that seek to affect party policy as to place themselves as a ruling class while being able to govern and resist openly bourgeois elements both foreign and domestic?

3. As far as I understand the elements of Soviet Governance such as ban on factions and Suspension of true Democratic Centralism were meant as measures of the reconstruction period in which democratic elements were suspended in order to prevent counter-revolution. How would one know when such methods were no longer necessary for the government? Or alternatively how could democratic means be preserved while resisting counter revolution?

(If any of this is misdirected I would appreciate it if I could be directed to a more correct target for my queries. Thank you ^^)

If I don’t misunderstand it, Mao explains that always listening to criticism is necessary to avoid mistakes, therefore the party has to allow criticism from the people as to not get disconnected from their needs. But so I don’t understand, Democratic centralism (again if I don’t misunderstand it) is basically: you can debate when about to take a decision, but once the decision is taken you are not allowed to oppose it (and therefore criticise it). To me thats a clear contradiction given that Mai supported both, so I guess I probably misunderstand it in some way, so can you please it me clear it up

This is going to be quite long, first I have very limited knowledge of the Soviet Union outside of western documentaries and what I know about the USSR military, so I need help to not write anti–communist propaganda on accident in an novel set during the cold war in 1967 with a ton of supernatural things, this is almost all worldbuilding where normal people, doesn't know about all this.

1: In 1937 the USSR in one expedition discovers an small kingdom with early 20th century technology in the Crai of Jabarovsk inhabited by creatures based on the Kumiho legend (Extremly efficient and resistent [Up to12.7mm bullets], mortal natural human predators that can read minds to learn other languages but they see hunting humans as uncivilized) they are oppressed by a cruel queen and there is a rebel group trying to revolt against their regime

2: Germany surrenders in february of 1945 so the USSR launches an even fiercer offensive against the Japanese and they manage to gain the Hokkaido under their administration, the first is ¿How an Hokkaido Communist Republic would be? considering they want to make a true communist country and the pressure from the west.

And the second is a large amount of supernatural creatures, (rational and; not rational even some of them ploting against the occupation) and how the USSR would deal with them in a large scale

3: The US and some NATO allies in the margin of the cold war uses multiple creatures and anomalies against the Warsaw pact and allies (The secret operations of the cold war)

How would the USSR and allies respond to this type of aggressions?, would they do the same or keep the things as human as possible?

Thanks for the attention and I hope I'm not inflicting any community guide.

Im not a communist but I’m interested in hearing what you guys think what a modern communist society would look like. Even down to popculture and fashion styles.

Working on a project where I'm trying to get insights into how folks on the left get book recommendations, especially for books that are on political subjects but not necessarily theory-heavy.

Curious especially about what forums and social media accounts comrades might turn to, but would love any/all feedback!

They often frame it a just as bad as operation paperclip. Can someone explain the difference? please provide sources

So I’ve been learned a lot about communism, then I realized my understanding of socialism was mostly democratic socialism which doesn’t count. Actual socialism sounds a lot like communism with abolishing private property, except its classless (which we would kind of get there through socialism), moneyless (but I’ve seen people say we may still have currency), and the state withers away but that doesn’t include government because that would be anarchy so that brings me back to socialism and communism differences, I’m confused idk?? Everything post capitalism is starting to mush together in my head the more I learn. Ik socialism is the process and communism is the goal, but what are the main differences as to what life would look like under both? What major things would have to happen for you to say we have officially reached socialism/communism?

I'm disabled and a dedicated socialist- in a perfect world I'd say anarchocommunism takes the cake, and am skeptical of democratic centralism, but believe that a collectivist society that guarantees equitable distribution of resource and political power alongside high standards of living is not only possibel and preferable, but the only hope for the United States to avoid devolving into either exclusionary Larouchite nationalism or technofascism, with the latter being the likelier of the two remaining, untenable futures I see in the cards.

I am concerned, though, about strains of communist ideology that center "workers" exclusively, as I believe that exclusion of those sometimes referred to derisevely as "social scum" both problematic and a vehicle for a reorienting of class dynamics rather than abolition of the class system outright. Some tendencies are not of this variety, most notably Mao Zedong Thought and the afrosocialism of Huey P. Newton.

Where do other communists and fellow travelers stand on this question? Personally, I reject the practice of reducing human beings to their potential for labor exploitation under capitalism as a means of assigning revolutionary potential, or at worst social value more broadly, as being the result of an ingrained bourgeois understanding of the value of human beings.

China: powerful, still around, sometimes it walks around like the us all without fear of collapse like many nations before.

Ussr: political downturn after economic downturn until their last leader made emergency liberal policies that angered hard liners who tried to coup the nation giving a Russian statesman the chance to dissolve the union and give himself power for the duration of the 90s where he tried to be friendly with the west all while the economy spun out of control. until putin took over and the country slowly became a hard core conservative nightmare that until 2014 was a good business partner with the west. Now his only western ally is trump but only in hushed terms.

Why is one (and vietnam) a super successful nation while the other is a fascist hell hole

I'm a firm believer that was good material conditions , social pressure , and Rehabilitation most people can be functional. But what do you do with the handful of true Psychopaths or sadists or folks who like little kids and just cannot control their impulses?

Prisons are kind of inhumane in my opinion I don't like the idea of warehouse and people, but some people just can't be allowed to run around . Would a communist system introduce the death penalty for the 1% you just cannot redeem? Would there be some sort of system to Exile people to areas where the damage they can cause would be limited?

Most folks in prison CAN function in society , but some people really just can't. What do you do with them ?

I would appreciate help working through my mixed feelings about Cuba. Hoping for some guidance, opinions, rebuttles, and/or reading materials to challenge ingrained biases / American propaganda.

TL;DR:
Cuban-American with Leftist Politics, but don’t like Communism because of my view of easy corruption. Still can’t get behind a one party system from weak anecdotal “evidence”, but still feel strongly about it. Hoping to have my beliefs challenged and pointed to good counter arguments and reading material to possibly break free of personal bias and US propaganda. Specifically Cuba.

I’m going to give some context.

I am technically first generation American. I say technically because both of my parents were born in Cuba, but came to the US very young, and grew up here in the states. I spoke spanish with my family, but english with my parents. Although technically being “first generation” is true, it just doesn’t feel fitting to what one would come to think of as “first generation”, nor is the experience the same.

My whole blood family is Cuban.

Politically, I consider myself leftist. I very much dislike liberals (to me they’re just conservatives), and I ESPECIALLY hate conservatives (although I do feel bad for working class conservatives. As stupid and lost I think they are, they’ve been duped. I like to think that if they learned class consciousness it can change a decent amount of them. Even though I really hate them and they hate me, I still think they should have access to every benefit and live a good life).

I think both parties here in US are on the same team and create division of the working class to uphold their ruling class / capitalist society. But this is something you all already know.

I’ve been a lefitst all my life, but its been hard to label my beliefs under a specific label. Ideally I like Anarchism; community organization and direct action to make the system obsolete. But that goal is a long term one. I think it’s kind of naive and unrealistic to say it can happen anytime soon, even decades. But I still think community organization and action is important and good no matter what.
So I maybe I fall somewhere as a Socialist or Democratic Socialist. I know those two labels have many differences but thats a different conversation.

I grew up and live in the biggest Cuban diaspora in the US (just saying this you can 100% guess where lol).
So I’ve always been around discussions and arguments over the situation in Cuba all my life.

Luckily I grew up with liberal/progressive parents and grandparents. Which is not so common.

Cubans tend to be republicans by default. Even though they have been, in my opinion (and objectively), the most helped (latin) immigrant population here in the states. I’m also aware of why.
So many Cubans benefit and rely on government programs yet are MAGA and hardcore republicans. It doesn’t make sense, but there a whole psychology behind that, and that’s a different conversation.

But, here’s what my post is really about:

I don’t like communism because:

I just don’t like a one party system.
(Yes I’m aware we’re kind of living under that right now in the US).

I am very aware of why Castro was so popular in his rise to power. It wouldn’t be wrong to say 80-90%+ of Cubans supported him during his rise to power. Even a lot of the wealthy class did. This level of support was before him leaning into Marxist/Leninist/Communist ideas, from my understanding, I could be wrong.

I am aware of the good things Castro did. Literacy rates went up, access to health care, etc etc.

I am very aware of how much the American embargo has devastated Cuba. It’s horrible. From my understanding, Castro went to the US to try to negotiate, US said nooooo, they wanted to keep their interests. Castro rightfully said screw y’all and went to the Soviets (which then lead to the embargo). Although less, Cuba managed well. Then in the 80’s the Soviet Union was having financial troubles (Marielito’s refugee wave) then finally collapsed ‘89-‘91.

Then Venezuela, with much less resources and abilities, supported Cuba. Until Trump/US took Maduro.
And now Cuba has the same full embargo, with no help, and is collapsing.

I am so against the embargo and find it appalling that Cubans here in the states support it, because at the end of the day, it’s our own people that are ultimately hurting and suffering.

Enough rambling: ultimately , I can’t get behind a one party system. Although anecdotal, I can see how people in power put friends and family in positions of power. It happens everywhere. I just don’t think Communism is immune to that, and have (anecdotal) heard otherwise.

But I know I shouldn’t take that as concrete evidence, and should challenge these notions and beliefs.
I thought maybe here is the right place.

I’m almost there with being communist, except how the party system works, and how easily (my opinion) it can be corrupted. Being that party leaders have access and distribute resources and privilege within themselves, while the common Cuban suffers.
But I could be totally wrong.

I hope some of y’all can guide me and maybe debunk, or give new perspectives to my ideas. I just want to learn.

Feel free to ask any questions if needed.
Thanks in advance.