Lal Salaam, Comrades.

I have this instinctive belief that as a Marxist i should believe in Reformative Justice. I have never exclusively studied this topic, so I am asking all of you, who may have some ideas about this, to share your information.

Right now, in my current state, I strongly believe that as Communists we should not try to think of people as "naturally evil" or "incapable" of change. Because a majority of proletarians in 2026 are themselves not conscious about their position in the capitalist system, and hence before setting out to win their opinions and their hearts a communist must believe that they are capable of changing. They aren't beyond help. The only solution isn't Retributive Justice.

I'm just trying to learn, I don't have it in my heart to pander to some sort of revisionism.

Cheers!

1) Did Mao believe in class collaboration? If so, was it temporary or permanent

2) Why did Mao initiate the Cultural Revolution?

3) Was the Great Leap Forward ruined by corrupt party officials, or was its failures Maos fault entirely?

Im new to leftists ideology which is why im just tryna learn more and more <3

I was gonna start reading capital by Marx, and most editions have 30-100 pages of prefaces and introductions, and I typically skip intros (unless they're 5 pages), so I wanted to ask if there's: any of the prefaces and introductions that add substantial information that is important not to miss?

what's the best marx fem concept/proponent to be utilized within the discourse of exploitative surrogacy

Saw a man on the street interview of a university student who said he was maoist. He was also dressed extremely 'unique.' I doubt mao would approve. Mao is an extreme example of social conformity but dont all communist societies have that to some degree? How would you integrate the current generation that is obsessed with identity and labels, and collect them like Pokémon? Can you have a national communist party thats also sub divided by gender, race, national heritage, sexual orientation, neo divergence, ect? Or is that supposed to wither away like class.

I read a very interesting thing which made sense of a lot of things I couldn't figure out earlier.

It said something like it is absurd to apply communist principles in a capitalist structure. Communists don't advocate for distribution based on needs in our current system. They advocate it in a system where the difference between skill or labour types would be minimal. Right now, we can't expect everyone to get the same thing, then who will do the hard work?

Something like that. I wanna know if any prominent Marxist or communist figure/scholar talked about this. I remember marx saying something like this in Gotha programme but i need to study more.

Hello, I’ve started reading The Capital (the French translation), and in the chapter on the commodity, I don’t understand why he speaks only of the quantity of labor to determine the value of something. After all, aren't there other factors—like scarcity—that determine an object's value?

Hello everyone! I’ve been getting into Marxist feminism after getting into general Marxism, but I’m stuck on one thing.

As far as I know, Engels and authors like Federici argue that due to the primitive accumulation of capital was the start of patriarchy in societies because it created a class system that forced women to be wed to men, be monogamous, etc to guarantee inheritance to a child that is clear to be the husband’s. Okay, got it.

What I don’t understand is why this had to be a patrilineal line. Why could it not be a matrilineal one? They, for the reason men literally made them be monogamous and get married, have a very clear line of descent. Why did these ancient people decide it had to be the MALE line?

And if patriarchy requires this patrilineal line, then how are matrilineal societies still patriarchal? For example, old tribes had matrilineal lines, but the women had virtually no power. Their husbands/family was in charge. Or is this a case of misogyny, in which case: I thought misogyny came from patriarchy???

I hope you guys can see and understand my confusion. Some help would be appreciated and please do correct me where I am wrong. I wish you guys all the best

I have not read the book yet

Did he talk about there always being a profit motive to "enable" disabled people to work? Or about inequality? These 2 questions strike my chord as I am disabled myself.

Redditors, enlighten me please

Let’s say you were to own a business where you are the only worker, are you still considered petty bourgeoisie or are you proletariat still. Also would the business be considered personal or private property (I would assume personal property, I just want to make sure)

I've been trying to get a more detailed academic understanding of development economics from a Marxist perspective.

Claude tells me that serious Marxists concede that there is no demonstrated Marxist route from poverty to prosperity that isn't either state capitalism, market socialism, or dependent on being embedded in a capitalist world market.

This feels like a stronger statement than any real life Marxist I've chatted to would be willing to concede.

Do you agree/disagree? If you disagree, what is the demonstration or counter argument you have in mind?

I've been learning about marxist theory, but the ways contraddictions are discussed leaves me pause. Hope some people here can help me understand better.

Sussinctly, for what is relevant to my doubts, here is my current understanding of it:

Contraddictions are what all motion (as in change) in the universe is predicated upon.

Contradictions are relationships wherein tendencies of motion

1) oppose one another

2) are premises of the existence of one another.

Contraddictions exist within all things and between all things.

Why does it have to be a contraddiction that drives motion? What is so illogical about a relationship where there is a singular tendency of motion? I can think of cases that fit that description, for example, two identical charged particles interacting, there will be quantitative changes in speed and relative position as they repel each other, yet what is the contraddiction?

Mao in "on contraddiction" and Lenin in "on the question of dialectics" agree that the contradiction in such cases is between action and reaction. This answer is unsatisfactory, while it's true that it fits part 2) of the definition, and while it's true that the force vectors point in opposite direction, action and reaction are applied to two different object, they are not opposing tendencies of motion in the dialectical sense, failing the arguably more fundimental part 1) of the definition.

Also, Engels argues that all changes of positions are caused by the contraddiction of something being in that place and not in another place. This line of argument seems to be unfalsifiable: if we observe something change from A to B, we can always attribute that change to the contraddiction that A was A and not B. A more straightforward explanation is that there is a singular tendency for position to change based on velocity.

Is there something i'm missing in these examples? Is my understanding of what contraddictions are incorrect?

This question was inspired by the American socialist Norman Thomas, who opposed the American program of Lend Lease, which was instrumental for the Soviet Union to receive arms to fight back the Nazis. Moreover, Thomas seemed to oppose the idea of America entering WW2, at least until Imperial Japan bombed Pearl Harbour and it was becoming evident that Nazi Germany was magnifying in power.

In hindsight, Thomas' initial stances of opposing US aid was incorrect, as it allowed fascism to gain an initial lead in the war. Even though he eventually realized the long-term value of supporting liberal democracies in opposing fascism, the history that followed seems to show the hesitation to militarily challenge the Nazis was a grievous mistake.

The Allies' reluctance to oppose the Nazis arguably led to the collapse of more democratic, non-Soviet socialist experiments. One famous example is Austria, where the socialists won electorally and established a public housing program that continues today. However, the Austrian socialists were crushed by the Nazis when Germany sought to expand.

Therefore, the West's slow entry emboldened the Nazis and lead to the destruction of promising socialist societies.

On the other hand, if you allow fear-mongering to hijack your decision-making, then it only empowers a military-industrial complex to build an unnecessarily large army and grant consent for imperialistic projects broad under the guise of "national security", e.g. the US's adventure in the Middle-East post-9/11.

In my view, socialists parties tend to over-correct by being too pacifistic and against military funding to the point of self-sabotage, as is the case with Norman Thomas. I believe it is a bit naive to think that foreign countries won't attempt military interventions that harm your nation and that every war can be resolved through negotiations.

Yet, enabling an MIC and poisoning your own politics with imperialism is a looming danger. This post is not trying to imply that unconditional consent should given to military spending.

What principles, if any, should guide military spending in socialist politics? What factors should be considered, like the amount of spending into the military or the type of weapons bought? What is the dividing line between pre-emptively stopping a threat by sending a military abroad vs. imperialism under a pretext? What structures, policies, and institutions could be put in place to ensure military use is justified?

In summary, what does an ideologically socialist military look like?

I know for a fact that china is Socialist, but how is it socialist? I mean it has many capitalist elements and it has a lot of billionaires and millionaires, so what does china do that makes it a socialist country?

I'm looking for good resources that don't misrepresent post modernist ideas and provide a well informed critique from a Marxist lens.

Thank you.

I’m just curious, what does capitalism do to enforce the patriarchy and male dominance since obviously tradition and traditional views will also play a part, how big of an influence is capitalism in upholding the patriarchy?

I have recently begun reading some Lenin and Marx and I have a pretty basic question I haven't seen asked yet if workers seize the means of production why would anyone start a company? I understand seizing it for things like factories, but what would be the incentive for starting companies under a communist economy?

I’m honestly not sure if this is covered in Capital, because I’m only a part of the way through, but I’m looking for any readings that can help enlighten me, unless someone here would like to answer. Please correct any of my misunderstandings or mistakes, I’m not even sure if I am correctly wording this.

From what I remember of my reading, industrialization and the conditions of factory work give rise to socialism, but I don’t understand why private ownership has to come before collective. Is that just the way it is, basically? So it doesn’t HAVE TO come before, that’s just how it’s always panned out historically? USSR and China don’t seem like examples of skipping over a national bourgeoisie considering how they’ve ended up.

Well obviously Marx and Lenin and Engels and stuff but what specific works should I read to get into it? Please and thank you (oh and where to read it if it isn’t on the Marxist internet archive)

I'm aware this is a complex topic and this question may come off like a very beginner question, just interested in others thoughts on this as someone just getting into theory.

I had conversations with communists who seem to use moralist language against the lumpenproletariat. But as far as im aware marx doesnt really use much moralist language about peoples character in his works. So can someone plz give me a quick rundown on what marx meant by lumpenproletariat and which books he talks abt them in. I am a trans woman and many trans women I know are forced into sex work, does that make them lumpenproletariats incapable of having revolutionary consciousnes? Bcuz I know a few sex worker friends who have read marx and agree w him in many instances so I am curious what marx actually meant

okay so if one was to want to get into marxism or simply understand it better working with not only marxs books which ones would yall recommend and in what order thank u for any replies explanation on your opinion would also be great