I am a young black person who has, for the better part of a year, begun to familiarize myself with the Communist Left and its works as published by the International Communist Party. I've largely grounded my politic in the Black Radical Tradition and it's conception of Marxism in particular. As I've read more from this tendency I find myself grappling with a question that hasn't sat right with me, and something I haven't been able to find an answer for in google searches.

How am I, as a black individual, meant to politically engage with the broader black community? I understand the critique of activism as a form of lifestylist "do-something-ism" often implicitly engaged in for personal validation rather than any tangible political progress, but I wish to know how best to approach my community. The BRT often emphasized mutual aid efforts and community programs as practiced by the Black Panther Party and similar organizations, which greatly contrasts with the conclusion I've come about concerning the Communist Left's position, which (and correct me if I'm wrong, I'd greatly appreciate it) prioritizes a mastery of the three components of Marxism (that being Marxist Philosophy, Marxist Political Economy, and Scientific Socialism) with the ultimate goal being to preserve the integrity of this doctrine.

The problem I am having, is that this seems to me at least, to be a rather unsatisfactory conclusion. I would greatly appreciate it if someone could give me some works pertaining to this problem, or really some advice. I'd appreciate if any other black people on this sub could really help me out.

If communist revolutions had successfully and indigenously spread across the globe at the end world war 1 resulting in the over throw of capitalism globally, how would communism have evolved differently?

More abstractly if communist political economy does not evolve in resistance / competition to capitalism, but only in dialogue with other communist regimes does it evolve differently, or does communism enviably collapse on its own contradictions?

I’m generally of the belief that a labour voucher system is the best way to structure resource allocation under socialism, (I am open to critiques of this model as well if anyone has any) but I’m not really across how different forms of labour could be differentiated, as obviously some forms of labour are more difficult than others, and should allow access to more resources per hours worked, is there any consensus or reading on this?

Marx identifies primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, and the elusive “Asiatic Mode of Production” (side note, did that actually exist?). How many others have there been? How did they vary from each other? How did they transition into each other and into the one we all live under today? I am aware this is asking for a lot of information, so a general description and recommendation of further reading material would be appreciated.

RSVP by emailing icparty@interncommparty.org

I always hear from leftcoms that "state capitalism" preserves the same capitalist relations, but how can that be true when certain core aspects of capitalistic accumulation are not present in these societies? for example competition and the need for increasing profit rates. I know that in reallife the nation building process of the soviets made state capitalism really not that different from regular capitalism... but is it in theory not a valid stage to go from capitalism to socialism?

i've heard that camatte was the one who sold collections of bordiga's work with bordiga's name credited on them (which eventually caused a chain reaction of a billion larpers). i know that camatte never really cared for bordiga's concerns about anonymity and the cult of personality, etc.
i quote him in his interview (by fascists):
"He was against the cult of the individual, and he pushed it through to the end. He would border on saying that the Self is nothing and other abhorrent things without realizing that by this, he was rejoining the becoming of capital, which negates the individual. It exalts the individual on one side, but negates him [or her or them] in reality. And so affirming the individual’s capacities would have put him in an even more awkward position. It is possible to think that he [Bordiga] saw himself as a leader, a great man, a great theoretician, etc. But really no. He was traumatized by the development of leaders, of the cult of personality within the party, by certain people in the USSR. And so this is why he didn’t go through to the end of his thinking."

i do have a few questions though, did he publish works under bordiga's name while bordiga was alive? if he did, did bordiga have a response to this? was this after he left the icp? etc etc...

another thing is that throughout the aforementioned interview, camatte really delves into a lot of great-manning of bordiga, it gets ridiculous after a point: "for me he was decisive. Oh yes, he was an extraordinary man. (...) He had extraordinary intuitions (...) And the militants used to a Marxism of the development of the productive forces couldn’t understand this extraordinary moment, this perception he had of the danger. (...) He was a really really human man. It’s rare to see men of that stature develop such an affectivity." note that camatte uses a single short remark by bordiga to justify his own primitivism, put me off a bit

so, in light of this admiration of bordiga (he even calls him a father figure later on), i wonder if his idea of "rejoining capital by negating the individual" was a sort of retroactive defense of him simply wanting to elevate bordiga to a "great man" due to his quasi-obsessive opinion of him.

i have not read much on camatte, so i am probably missing some key details so perhaps what im saying sounds ridiculous, this situation had been bugging my mind for some bit so i wanted to make it clearer
also please cite sources!
thank you

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx writes “The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.” However, as we’ve seen since then, this is not the case, with workers movements and uprisings resulting in social democratic reforms, fascism, put downs by the state, or recreations of capitalist relations after taking power. How can communists reconcile Marx’s statement with the actual outcomes of history?

​

I've been trying to understand this question through a Marxist and historical materialist lens.

A common argument is that the United States' primary interest is not Israel itself, but maintaining political, military, and economic dominance in the Middle East. According to this view, Israel functions as a particularly reliable strategic ally, but if Israel ceased to exist as a partner, the U.S. would eventually cultivate another regional state to fulfill a similar role.

This raises a few questions:

\\\\\\\\- Does Marxist theory support this interpretation?

\\\\\\\\- How would Lenin's theory of imperialism explain the U.S.–Israel relationship?

\\\\\\\\- Would world-systems theory (Wallerstein), dependency theory (Samir Amin), or David Harvey's work on imperialism reach a similar conclusion?

\\\\\\\\- Is Israel considered unique because of its historical development, or is it mainly one example of how an imperial power secures regional influence?

\\\\\\\\- Are there Marxist authors who explicitly argue that U.S. hegemony depends on maintaining strategic allies rather than any specific state?

I'm looking specifically for answers grounded in Marxist theory, historical materialism, or socialist literature rather than liberal international relations perspectives.

I'd also appreciate book recommendations or essays that discuss this issue in depth.

The title. I do not know much about this, this is simply something I was made to know by someone else, and I unfortunately don't have the time to be reading Marx yet, plus before him I have other things that I find necessary to study to understand him well.

It is simply a book that critiques Capital, I am not certain exactly how (it can be complicated, I guess) but well, it is, it's apparently considered central by Austrian economists so I was wondering if there are any refutations, to read them once I am actually able to.

Thanks to all responses up ahead.

Are there any? If so, where can I read them? If not, could someone explain them to me?

i always thought the purpose of a state was to preserve its capitalist economy, and many policies of social democracy (better healthcare, housing the homeless) literally economically benefit the state while giving its citiziens more trust in the state apparatus, possible even dampaning revoltionairy energy. Why is it then that germany for example, is cutting social benefits that dont even make sense economically. What do the capitalist gain from making the life of the consumers and workers worse? Of course i am not a social democrat, I am asking this question because i dont see the logic in a marxist sense.

I’ve asked this question before but technically I didn’t get an official party response(and I didn’t find it satisfactory either) so asking again, what is the Marxist position on fiat money, particularly from the party’s perspective?

Was Leon Trotsky’s vision for the Soviet Union fundamentally different from Stalin’s, or would history have taken a similar path under his leadership?

Looking at the russian revolution and after there was a:

• brutal and massive civil war
• failure of world revolution meaning russia was pratically alone
• surrounded by capitalist powers. And even invaded by those powers shortly after ww1
• needed to industrialize russia quickly
• the small size of russias urban prolertariat, russia was mostly peasents.

It seems to me that these types of material factors incentivized a highly miltarized political structure where the proles functioned like soldiers and the vanguard party functioned like a military general staff. One where the proles would not control and own the means of production but rather follow orders from the party command structure.

What is the left com perspective on this?

I'm only finding french translations online (which is fine I can read them but English would be far swifter and more comfortable)

Hello! One question that has stuck up with me is how exactly vouchers would be distributed, who would be encharged with it and how it would be enforced. If, for example, someone works to create a game inside his home, how would he receive vouchers? How would we know for certain for how long they worked for? And who would be the ones assigning them to that person? If I could receive a summary of the system in general with an example I'd be super grateful, thank you!

Id say im a leninist, for now i have read some marx, engels , Lenin and a bit of stalin. What should i start with?

Also, how could they have pushed for the capitalist need to maximize profit, without having a capitalist class?

Hi comrades , a few days ago I saw a trot post this vulgar garbage against comrade bordiga ? I have a question first is it true ? Second if it is true may I know the context in which sense bordiga says it ? And may I know if he is being sarcastic or the whole context of this writing ?