I personally don't think a country that has zero internationalism or class analysis but has a hereditary caste system (the Songbun system), a monarchy with a sacred bloodline and propaganda that invokes supernatural phenomena (including a trope of nature itself rejoicing when Kim Jong Il was born) can even be called leftist in any recognizable shape or form.
Hello,
New to this sub. Generally speaking, I’m a fan of free market but acknowledge it as an imperfect and flawed system.
So my question: is there a marxist system in place today that has a thriving society? I see a lot of dismissal of the USSR collapse, Chinese revolution and Khmer Rouge as “not real communism”. But if these are the main examples of real world implementation, I’ll take capitalism 10/10 times. So does the classless, post scarcity world that communism promises only exist in theory? Is a social democracy system like Scandinavia seem like a realistic thing to strive for over communism?
Let me know your thoughts.
I'm fairly new to this, mainly because of how complex this question can be¿ Anyway, I'm very interested in reading different opinions.
100 million dead, countless priceless artifacts destroyed, ancient churches and monasteries razed to the ground, and the brutal rapid industrialization of agrarian societies.
So I recently read the manifesto and I want some answers and insight to some doubts and theories I have going on in my head based on how I interpreted the text and history. If I'm wrong, then that's fine and chalking a point to "you just fell victim to American propaganda" is perfectly fine to me. I also identify as a communism-centrist (I will expand upon down below). These are simply thoughts/questions I have had before and after reading the manifesto.
Lenin, Stalin and Mao weren't good people(?). Sure, they were communists that for sure progressed socialism their respective societies, but as far as I'm concerned they went on a power trip at the same time (such as the Cheka in Lenin's case). This power trip being the part I take issue with. I do come from a family that fled China due to Mao's rule, but this point probably has a "victim of propaganda" answer.
Furthermore, the reason communism wasn't achieved in these societies was because of a combination of this power trip holding them back, but also the poor state of their economies and technology. I do like how, after the instillation of a socialist/communist society, existing technology would be reallocated to answer for needs of subsistence. However, The Soviet Union and China were largely agrarian and struggling. The Soviet Union in particular still had to deal with a world war, remnants of the previous autocracy and bourgeois elements, and progressing famine. If these countries had a better economy and further technological capabilities, the technology could better answer for subsistence and make a communist utopia easier to implement.
Capitalism is necessary in this way(?). The more time goes on in a capitalist society, the more technology would be advanced. This technology does reduce the ability of the already exploited laborer to work, reducing their wage since they have to switch to a job that requires less skill. I understand that as long as capitalism is in place, exploitation will always exist and technology will more than likely never be used to answer for things like housing and food. But in my opinion, the technology only needs to be able to exist for a communist revolution in the US to take place. Progress in technology only gives more reason to the proletariat to revolt. And when we have the technology to efficiently and effectively answer subsistence, then the time for revolution is nigh. On that note, a revolution HAS to take place in America because if the face of capitalism falls, it would signal to all other socialist countries to follow suit and work towards collective worldwide communism.
The rest are lesser theories
a. The political -- people who surrender their beliefs to these parties that actively work against their interests, instead opting to fight a ruse against followers of the opposing party which becomes "real" enough to split and shun relationships.
b. The apolitical -- the centrists. I admit that I myself am unfortunately part of this group. These people sneer and act high and mighty over others for caring about politics, but their indifference only contributes to the worsening state of society. And, in the event that these reactionaries do support communism (at least in theory), they don't have the balls to start anything in fear of the consequences if their efforts fail.
c. The uninformed. These people make up a subsection of the first two categories, distinct in that they completely fall for the propaganda of both/either parties, or the lack of news thereof. If people don't know there is a problem in the first place, then there is no problem to address. Likewise if they don't know the system they're in actively exploits them, then they can live in bliss.
I ask this as i do feel I have been fed right-wing propaganda about the supposedly deplorable nature of the DPRK but simultaneously i also do not know the credibility of left-wing content creators like Madeline Pendleton who may also have some bias.
While i do identify as a communist via the belief that workers can and should own the means of production, I do not know how to feel about the political state of DPRK, whether to support or defend it, or whether we do not consider it to be a star example of what communism is.
Write down your core beliefs about Marxism, in 1-2 sentences. Why is it important? Why are you committed to it? How does it compare to other paradigms? Use the phrase "Marxism is," (or the name of your favorite Communist thinker).
Now, replace the word "Marxism" (or "Leninism," etc) with the name of any major religion.
How would you react to a religious person who expressed statement #2? Why?
How do you expect people to react to your statement #1? Why?
One thing is i admire the communist movement in general and i think workers owning the means of production is essential to ensure there is no exploitation of workers under the bourgeoisie and billionaires. When i see how Lenin utilised the concepts Marx discussed in his book under USSR, i truly believe it was generally a dulcet experience for many workers under Lenin.
However, when Stalin took over, he did things that were detrimental to the social state of the USSR, such as setting up a quota that if not met, means food would not be re-distributed. Essentially meaning farmers who did not produce sufficient would go hungry. He was also responsible for the famine and starvation of millions of Ukrainians as there was peasant resistance that was incipient and on the rise. Also, he re-criminalized homosexuality when Lenin de-criminalized it, which i don’t fuck with at all, (no homophobes, thank you.)
I know many of us are conversant with how Stalin was injurious to the state of USSR, but i also simultaneously see many people part of our movement defend Stalin’s approach to communism on social media. When we do this, i feel like it just diminishes the appeal of communism when what we should be doing is convincing people to support us.
what kind of communism is the best and which kind do you follow? Also give an explanation as to why you believe what you believe.
For example, both a doctor, an artist, and a barista would generally all be provided with the same benefits?
Becuz i do believe in socialism and the re-distribution of wealth and workers owning the means of production such that ALL basic needs are met. But i myself feel that not sufficient people would want to take on the roles of doctors if its all the same, regardless of how many would still be doctors out of a genuine desire to help others.
I am not necessarily saying there has to be monetary benefits, but i feel like there does have to be a higher incentive. I do have very high admiration for many of my beautifu communists leftist, its just that i do not completely concur with the idea of everyone just generally getting what they need but beyond that, there is no additional gains or benefits from doing a job that could take arduous effort other than your own internal desire to do it.
Just to be clear, though, i am NOT a capitalist and i do find radical leftism appealing as a queer, asian and anti-zionist individual.
Appreciating any comments that can address my concerns for this.
"Cada mentira dicha es una deuda con la verdad" es una frase que sale de la miniserie Chernobyl, y pareciera que eso nos gusta ignorar.
La unión soviética no cayó porque su modelo económico fuera justamente inviable, sino porque se convirtió en todo lo que prometió combatir, corrupción, autoritarismo, mentiras y más mentiras. Una noble causa humanitaria "la felicidad de la humanidad" dio lugar a un sistema de sometimiento, es cierto que la URSS tuvo sus lados oscuros, y también es cierto que muchas cosas malas pasaron en la unión soviética.
Seguramente quien no conoce a Marx lo culpará a él, pero hay que recordar que cada sistema fábrica su propia versión, y el de la unión soviética fue el Marxismo-Leninismo, aun así, eso no justifica todos los atropellos sufridos por millones de personas.
Parece que para construir una nación, las bases se deben sentar sobre los huesos y la sangre de otras personas, y esta no fue la excepción, la diferencia con el renombrado capitalismo, es que este es a prueba de fallos, pues este prospera en las crisis: ¿no hay empleo formal? Precariza, ¿hay crisis ambiental? Privilegia a quienes pueden acceder al agua y a los recursos, ¿hay crisis de vivienda? Las reduce a la mínima expresión, las vende por precios inflados, secuestra el derecho a la vivienda, y pone a un pobre a vivir en una caja de fósforos.
Desde luego, no faltará el que me diga que si no me gusta el sistema, me vaya a vivir a Cuba, pero no estoy diciendo que volvamos al marxismo, o al socialismo, estoy diciendo que: o el capitalismo cambia su modelo de hiperproductividad, o terminará por extinguir a la humanidad.
Si comparamos el neo liberalismo con una enfermedad, sería un cáncer, pues este cree que puede existir crecimiento infinito, en un mundo finito, que tiene recursos ya muy limitados, el cáncer es un crecimiento anomalo de las células, en un cuerpo que solo puede crecer hasta cierto punto.
Quizás no guste lo que digo, pero pensar hacer fracking, y acabar con las reservas naturales de agua no llevara a ninguna nación a una futura prosperidad, cuando el último río se envenena ¿beberas billetes?
Why do farmers and blue-collar workers tend to support right-wing political parties more often than left-wing parties in many countries when left-wing policies would benefit them so much more?
For context, i was talking with my only other communist friend, i think hes an anarchocommunist, and he said he wished that all the anti-communist should just fuck off and die. I immediately realised how problematic what he said was. This is also becuz i myself has put on a “radical empathy” mindset. One example of this was when back in 2025 i decided to donate money to a cause based the in uk(i think uk), that allowed Palestinians in Gaza to get access to nutritional services and food. I had a queer friend who asked me how i felt knowing I could have fed a homophobic Palestinian. Thing was, I did not really care if i fed the most homophobic and potentially evil Palestinian or the most queer Palestinian, neither of them from my perspective deserved to starve.
Taking it a step further, I would also donate money in a hypothetical situation where my queer friend who does not have empathy for Palestinians and my communist friend who wants to starve people against leftism were starving and needed money to get access to food.
So, generally, you see the mindset i apply. And don’t get me wrong, i’m realistic. Just becuz i have empathy for all, I acknowledge there will probably be human obstacles we would have to diminish or get rid of via violence, but i dont want to do violence if i do’t have to.
Anyways, regardless of how you feel about my radical empathy, i feel like the general communist community can concur with me that we don’t want to HURT people who disagree with us, right? I think he’s generally part of the minority. Becuz i adopted the communist ideology not out of a desire to inflict damage, but out of a desire to genuinely benefit the world.
Hi there im Ginger and i live in Malaysia. Before that I just want to say i do not support MPAJA. It is because those are actual terrorist groups in my country.
I don’t understand why people always heavily demonise communism. We always say steal the rich and give the poor in order to have an equal society. Like for capitalism the rich get richer and the poor gets poorer thought capitalism sometimes does reward you for hard work that’s more toward meritocracy. Anyways for communism,u don’t earn more or less. Seem not a good idea when it comes to economic growth but can u imagine of not having a roof on your head especially in a volatile word today where u have no guarantee u will have a better life for the next generations. I’m saying this because the only communism im familiar with is Maoism im Chinese Malaysian and that ideology is shit. My relatives at China legit told me that during that time everyone is starving,poor and fighting to survive one of my mom’s uncle at a very young age gets to experience eating the tender parts of grass like a cow on the streets because they dont have enough food. Plus it’s very weird china was a communist when meritocracy has been part of our culture for centuries. China still is communist today but at least it’s under paper and that meritocracy is back again. But for plp living under USSR apparently they miss those times which is a HUGE CONTRAST of what my relatives from China experience under Mao’s ruling.
The only think i could think why people dont like communism is because the associations of bad plp (Like MPAJA) and that since you dont earn more or less ur country can’t develop economy wise and production will just slow down cuz why work hard when you earn the same as the lazy ones. Like one of my other uncles from china too where he was arrested because he didn’t work for the country but still getting salary. Though i wish plp can seperate the core idea of communism and the people who use this method to control the country.
That being said i would like you guys to explain to me why is that? Are there other reasons why communism is frowned upon?
Initially, while i was anti-capitalist, i was not a fully staunch supporter of communism because the idea that everyone would be treated the same beyond having their basic necessities met(I completely agree basic necessities should be met), i thought if was necessary to have a physical incentive to do the jobs that are more physically or emo demanding, like a doctor or a janitor.
Then someone else pointed out that if benefits were to be provided, that would also mean there could be a lack of people who have their basic rights met due to resources being utilised as a form of physical incentive. That made me re-evaluate my beliefs for a while as i realised that yes, that is a plausible occurrence.
After i also found out the amount of doctors in cuba was copious and a high amount despite lack of pay, that eventually did convince me that everyone be treated the same is optimal all in all.
Am i still welcomed to the movement despite the fact that it was only the resources argument that convinced me and the evidence in cuba felt like validation for my beliefs? Should i approach this another way?
Why do communists arbitrarily hate random countries. Like they hate Taiwan bc its independent from China and they hate that Tibetans(I know Tibet isn't an independent country but still) want to not be Chinese (because they have their own culture) and if you ask them they say its because they're not communist. But then why dont they hate other random countries for not being communist? Is it because they think China and Russia are truly communist? I'm not even anti communist I just don't understand the logic here
First, I should clarify that these aren't polished questions or fully formed positions. I also identify as a socialist myself. These are simply a collection of scattered thoughts that have been bouncing around my head over the past few days.
TL;DR: The recurring theme here is the necessity, nature, and timing of revolution in a highly technological future.
Let's grant, for the sake of discussion, that AGI is possible and that technological development continues far beyond today's capabilities.
The traditional Marxist argument for revolution is rooted in class conflict between workers and owners of capital. But I'm struggling to understand how that framework applies to some possible future scenarios.
Scenario 1: Partial Automation
Suppose AI and robotics make 50% of human workers economically obsolete. This seems like a major crisis for capitalism. Either some form of redistribution (such as UBI) becomes necessary, or society risks moving toward a techno-feudal arrangement where a relatively small group owns productive AI systems while a large population becomes economically unnecessary.
Both of those scenarios seem incompatible with capitalism in its current form.
But my question is about the necessity of revolution and the uprising of the working class.
On the one hand, the argument for revolution seems relatively straightforward: democratic control of productive technology becomes necessary before ownership becomes concentrated in a tiny elite.
On the other hand, that techno-feudal scenario doesn't seem particularly stable. If most people become economically obsolete, who constitutes the consumer base? Capitalists can accumulate ownership and power, but capitalism has historically relied on both production and consumption. If wages disappear on a massive scale, what sustains the system?
Seizing the means of production seems optimal, for obvious reasons. But does it remain necessary?
Or am I missing something?
Scenario 2: Full Automation
Suppose human labor becomes almost entirely unnecessary. Capitalism, at least in its traditional form, appears difficult to sustain because wage labor is no longer central to production.
This could lead to dystopian outcomes, but it could also lead to something resembling post-scarcity or "fully automated luxury communism."
If technological development itself undermines the foundations of capitalism, what role does revolution play? Is revolution still necessary, or does the system transform primarily through technological change?
In this scenario, full automation and the advent of AGI seem likely to push society toward either a utopian or a dystopian outcome.
If the latter is to be avoided, then revolution and democratic control may be necessary before it's too late (which relates to a question I'll return to later).
Scenario 3: Brain-Computer Interfaces and Human Augmentation
Now imagine advanced BCIs and human-machine integration. Some humans become heavily augmented while others do not. Economic and social divisions may no longer map neatly onto "worker" and "capitalist."
Would the central conflict become one between augmented and non-augmented humans? Between AI systems and enhanced humans? Between those who control enhancement technologies and those excluded from them?
Alternatively, widespread access to augmentation could lead to collective advancement and a symbiotic relationship between humans and machines, potentially accelerating the path toward post-scarcity.
In such a world, what does "class struggle" even mean? What would revolution be directed against, and why would it be necessary?
One More Question That Keeps Bothering Me
If revolution is necessary in one or more of these futures, how do we know when it's too late?
If a small group gains overwhelming control over AI, automation, robotics, surveillance, data, and even human enhancement technologies, there may come a point where meaningful resistance becomes practically impossible.
From a Marxist perspective, is there a threshold beyond which revolutionary change becomes unrealistic? If so, what would that threshold look like?
Is revolution something that emerges naturally when the contradictions of a system become severe enough—like a ripe fruit eventually falling from a tree?
Or does it always require conscious political action to shake the tree?
If the latter, how do we know when the moment is right?
If the former, what if the ripe moment never arrives?
More broadly: how should Marxists think about revolution when technological development begins to blur—or perhaps dissolve—the traditional categories of worker, capitalist, labor, and production?
Does advanced AI and human augmentation make revolution more necessary, less necessary, or fundamentally different from what Marx imagined?
i keep getting into discussions with people who don’t see communism as achievable or “the right thing” for our current society (which i partly agree with, as i don’t believe we as a society are READY for such a revolution yet) but they keep bringing up this thing that i can only describe as “socialistic capitalism”??? no clue. they want for society to be more socialist but keep some capitalistic values because they think full on communism wouldn’t work. but from my understanding socialism is just the step in between capitalism and communism, it’s meant to make communism more achievable. so i guess my question is: theoretically once we reach a stable state of socialism, what’s stopping people from viewing communism in a similar manner to how they view socialism now? do they think we should stop at socialism because they’re scared it would be too “radical” to go further? or because they’re conditioned to live within capitalism and are scared of change?
There’s something I’ve noticed in regards to communists’ fascination with “worker unity.” That being that there are tons of ‘workers’ who legitimately view other workers as people who need to be eradicated. I work a blue collar job and the amount of comments I hear about “drag queen groomers” and “ragheads” tends to be a daily occurrence.
Would communists actually think a blue collar worker who advocates for the genocide of trans people is the more valid ally? Would they demand that trans people tolerate other “workers” who want to see them subjugated?