[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ausneets / b2 / choroy / dempart / doomer / jenny / vichan / y2k ]

/marxism/ - Marxism

let the ruling classes tremble


Winner of the 81rd Attention-Hungry Games
/y2k/ - 2000s Nostalgia

Entries for the 2019 Summer Infinity Cup are now open!
May 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
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, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 3 per post.

File: 682a9744b4c9a84⋯.jpg (934.13 KB, 2160x2592, 5:6, 682a9744b4c9a8455be89dec48….jpg)


The purpose of this board is to promote Marxist ideas, educate, share resources, and engage in productive discussion. New flag and thread requests can be made here.

Board Pages



What is socialism?


State Capitalism: A guide to the Soviet economy



1. No spam, no NSFW.

2. Stay on-topic.

3. Nazis / Rightwingers belong in the containment thread.

20 posts and 16 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
Post last edited at




File: d807762c632e1a9⋯.jpg (21.95 KB, 210x356, 105:178, saint-bordiga.jpg)


Post last edited at

File: fa85e6fd5b44977⋯.png (1.25 MB, 1842x1036, 921:518, marx_prageru.png)


Thread for discussing Marxist theory.

32 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Is it just me or is Marxism waaaay different than what many Marxists seem to believe…?


This is a great thread, thank you a lot /marxism/ anons, I think ily.


Nice thread.

Had a thought today. Don't take this the wrong way, but doesn't it seem that theory / ideological debates are stupid? The only thing that matters is success. When the Bolsheviks succeeded, everyone wanted to be Leninist. When Mao succeeded, everyone wanted to be Maoist. etc etc.

Am I wrong? Does theory actually matter or is it just a waste of time?


Marxism makes my dick hard.



That depends on what you mean by Marxism and Marxists to mean tbh. I'd argue that a lot of Marxists, particularly the social democratic and leninist types, don't really read Marx beyond quote mining and go elsewhere for theory. Then there's the fact that Marx's writing spanned decades and he did change his mind or was inconsistent in places, not to mention his work was almost exclusively focused on the development of western yuropoor and burgerland.


>Don't take this the wrong way, but doesn't it seem that theory / ideological debates are stupid?

Most "ideological debates" are just lobbing insults at the other person/organization/tendency and restating your position. They're a waste of time and you could find hundreds of more useful or pleasing things to do instead.

Theory matters because it is the tools we use to understand the world and attempt to change it. It's essential to avoid becoming a performance artist more concerned with defending a graveyard than any real movement.

File: 462d7fa994cb0cc⋯.png (155.96 KB, 525x762, 175:254, israelairstrikes2.png)


Thread for discussing news.

12 posts and 9 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



The Yuan seems stable. Looks like Russia and China are trying to push other countries away from using the dollar.



So it's still just China & Russia? Nobody has joined yet?

Maybe Xi's recent visit to Afghanistan for conciliatory talks signal some effort to appeal to the countries of the central, south & west Asian regions, many of which would be primed for such an economic deal, considering mistrust of the US is already incredibly high amongst them. Now I'm just speculating. It would of course be more strategic for them to ally with more economically powerful regions like Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Vietnam, maybe even India (they do seem rather Sinophobic though so maybe that's unrealistic).

I believe that China will have to surpass the US (thus sparking a US decline) before we have any chance at transitioning towards lower-phase communism in the developed world. That socialist organizing is being normalized in the US is a monumentally important development as well that gives me a lot of hope, even though one may point out that it's mainly socdem sentiments - the importance is the breaking of the McCarthyist norm for the ends of the Marxists of the world to be increasingly less likely to be assassinated. Mexico might return a norm of red organizing to contradict the neo-nationalist wave across the south of the Americas as well. EU instability only furthers the instability of the transatlantic hegemony and could be exploited by strategies of either DiEM25 or joining in on the hard euroscepticism (it seems the first would be more effective in countering bourgeois renewal (of which neo-nationalism practically is), but maintaining a critical opposition towards the social liberals that seems to be allowed in DiEM25. The majority of the parties seems to be left-wing though. DiEM25 could also capture some of the environmentalist sentiment that's now surging in Europe on the progressive to secure the collapse of the center.



>So it's still just China & Russia? Nobody has joined yet?

China, Russia, Pakistan, and Turkey, and Iran are all trying to stop using the dollar and replace it with with national currencies for trade deals. African countries that have bilateral trade deals with China are probably also effectively bypassing the use of the dollar in international trade. This will increase over time if China can develop more trade deals.


File: da8fa3431eeebe0⋯.jpg (7.91 KB, 180x271, 180:271, cockshott.jpg)

Proletarian News Service #4 - PETRODOLLAR EDITION

Saudi Arabia threatens to ditch dollar oil trades to stop 'NOPEC'

Saudi Arabia is threatening to sell its oil in currencies other than the dollar if Washington passes a bill exposing OPEC members to U.S. antitrust lawsuits, three sources familiar with Saudi energy policy said.


The Worrisome Deal: China and Saudi Arabia

Recent conversations between Saudi Arabia and China have dealt with lifting the dollar off oil and replacing it with China’s national currency, the yuan.


US dollar may depreciate

…The problem is that China, India, and Russia, as well as other countries, are bent on replacing the US dollar as the main international currency. They are heaping up large amounts of gold, and the idea may be to institute national gold-backed cryptocurrencies to compete with the US dollar.


Swap Agreements Threaten U.S. Dollar Dominance

China and Russia have signed a swap agreement that allows for trade in their respective currencies. This will make it possible for them to avoid using US dollars in transactions. This is not the first swap agreement, but good relations between Putin and Xi are the basis for an expPost too long. Click here to view the full text.




File: 25f2cd26170a801⋯.jpg (129.48 KB, 472x640, 59:80, ribbentrop-and-stalin-at-t….jpg)


remember when Stalin shook hands with nazis and then allied with western imperialist powers?


30 posts and 10 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 16ee71846b1e8dd⋯.png (123.8 KB, 1534x862, 767:431, ClipboardImage.png)



Part 2/2

> the possibility of the USSR simply withholding aid from Germany instead of shipping it massive quantities of vital raw materials during 1940-1941

Holy fuck you're that retard from the WW-2 Myths thread!

The USSR got out of that trade nearly 1 billion reichsmarks for what was essentially nothing in terms of supplies. 50% of the supplies were literally just wheat and grains, with metal supplies being less than nothing.

320 MILLION tonnes of wheat alone was produced in USSR 1941-1945, despite not having Ukraine or Belorus under their control for 3 of those years. That's 80 million tons per year. And yet much of the USSR was still on hunger rations despite producing that much. Now tell me, how much 1 million tons of wheat would do for Germany whose army was among the largest in the world even in 1940. Not a fucking lot. Moreover, most of the scrap metal the USSR sent Germany was low-end stuff unsuited for things like armor.

Beside the nearly 1 billion Reichsmarks the USSR got the unfinished cruiser Lutzow, dozens of top-of-the-line German military aircraft (such as the new Messerschmidt Bf-109E), dozens of tanks, trucks, artillery naval and terrestrial, and 300 pieces of various industrial machines/machining tools, which were used throughout the war to crank out T-34s and the like. Also hundreds of electromotors, compressors and other important pieces of tech that the USSR analyzed and threw into mass production. Germany was essentially swindled.

<In b4 Tooze

The context of the Tooze excerpt is the following.

1) Soviet exports made up roughly 50% of what Germany got

2) 50% of the export was wheat and grains.

3) That was for 1 year - 1940/41 - which in the over-all context of German industry (1939-1945) makes up a tiny percentage.

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



>Invasion of Poland

Just some additional evidence for those who get assblasted by Furr

Here is the translated plans for Operation Weiss


In those documents the German War plan mentions the 'russians' 2 times, and considered their entrance into the war as unlikely. The Red Army not only was not 'invading' but it even resorted to subterfuge to avoid conflicts with the Poles. A lot of tanks were draped with white bed sheets on the gun barrels. They told the Poles “We’ve come to help you against the Germans.” But by this time there were not many left. The Poles were either tightly encircled or trying to fight their way out of the country at the Romanian bridgehead.

The USSR's entrance into Poland was earlier than expected (as stated by Heinz Guderian), but ocurred after the Germans had effectively won the war. In the pact all that was agreed on about Poland was that it would be divided roughly along the Curzon Line. Stalin at first favoured a rump state but with the unexpected cowardice of Polish leadership opted for returning western Belarus to Belarus and western Ukraine to Ukraine.

Even the anti-soviet Churchill (who had been encouraging the execution of Operation Pike, a joint strike on the USSR by France and the UK) stated that the enterance into Poland was not an invasion.


This is in spite of the fact that the Winter War of that same year had every western imperialist howling their throats out over at the League of Nations, despite the similar ambiguity.

I'll add more to this:

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


File: 3a2b9ea75c02b05⋯.png (396.33 KB, 765x599, 765:599, StalinRykovKamenevZinoviev.png)


>Remember when Britain and France kept dicking around and indirectly supporting Hitler throughout the 30s and tried to direct him into war with the USSR while ignoring Soviet calls for collective security?

Far better to wait until the eve of war then do a 180 and allow the Nazis to overrun Poland, then France, without fear of fighting on two fronts. It was another brilliant strategy by Comrade Stalin.

>We must critically use pragmatism to delay war and turn the mad attack dog onto its masters before it attacks us, LOL.

And the plan worked perfectly! Oh wait…

>50% of the supplies were literally just wheat and grains, with metal supplies being less than nothing.

All of those materials were desperately needed by Germany. Obtaining wheat and grain was a major motivation for invading the USSR, albeit based on mistaken calculations. The metals supplied by the Soviets were also critical to German production. They supplied 65% of German chromium ore, which is massively important for producing stainless steel, armor plating, gun barrels, ball bearings, aircraft engines, etc etc. Likewise, the Soviets provided Germany with 40% of its nickel imports, also useful for creating alloys for military production.

>Who the fuck do you think you're kidding?

Finland was not at war with the USSR. Then the USSR attacked Finland and they became enemies. Do you need me to draw you a picture?

>Welcomed by many. The anti-sovietism of the current Baltics is a cultivated nationalism that was not present in Soviet times.

Strange, then, that thousands of men from the Baltic region joined the Waffen-SS to fight the Soviets.

>Get your head out of your ass.

Furr is not acceptable as evidence.

>The Red Army not only was not 'invading' but it even resorted to subterfuge to avoid conflicts with the Poles. A lot of tanks were draped with white bed sheets on the gun barrels. They told the Poles "We’ve come Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 32796ffbe244549⋯.jpg (178.84 KB, 1003x1332, 1003:1332, missing from gulag u.jpg)


>Far better to wait until the eve of war

Wow you're dumb. Germany was entering Poland either way, they had no borders with the USSR. Prior to 1939, Poland was all for a war with the USSR, but in 1939, they tried to welch out of starting the war with the Soviets, so Germany decides that it would take Poland and make it a vassal state. 3 Million soldiers under German command. The USSR, unable to get any anti-Hitler pacts from the West decided to make the best of the situation and return Western Belarus and Ukraine to the USSR, establishing a buffer zone.

>allow the Nazis to overrun Poland, then France, without fear of fighting on two fronts

Go back to the thread coward. France being "over-run" was literally all on France. France paid for its own incompetence and appeasement of the fascists to the point of not helping its ally Poland in any meaningful way. The USSR had obligations only to itself. Establishing a delay to the war. Neither Germany, nor the USSR expected either France or Poland to fold so quickly… mostly because they underestimated how incompetent the West really was.

So yes, it was a brilliant strategy.

>And the plan worked perfectly!

It worked better than expected. France got its come-uppance for ignoring the repeated Versailles Treaty violations

>All of those materials were desperately needed by Germany.

No, not really.

> The metals supplied by the Soviets were also critical to German production

Except they weren't.

>They supplied 65% of German chromium ore

FOR THE YEAR 1940 YOU RETARD. Over the war from 1939-1945 the USSR's chromium was a drop in a bucket.

>the Soviets provided Germany with 40% of its nickel imports

FOR THE YEAR 1940. Do you specialize in manipulation or something?

>Finland was not at war with the USSR. Then the USSR attacked Finland and they became enemies.

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


File: e82184b36927c45⋯.png (305.92 KB, 581x598, 581:598, Feeding the German Eagle, ….png)

File: 9614bbdf95fc2eb⋯.png (111.98 KB, 552x880, 69:110, Feeding the German Eagle, ….png)

File: 1d350ae7e46d139⋯.png (34.54 KB, 562x424, 281:212, tooze_321.png)


Do you ever get tired of being so wrong?

"Without Soviet deliveries of these four major items (oil, grain, manganese, and rubber), however, Germany barely could have attacked the Soviet Union, let alone come close to victory. Germany's stockpiles of oil, manganese, and grain would have been completely exhausted by the late summer of 1941. And Germany's rubber supply would have run out half a year earlier."

"In other words, Hitler had been almost completely dependent on Stalin to provide him the resources he needed to attack the Soviet Union."

File: 7cbd5bba5182274⋯.jpg (33.88 KB, 622x455, 622:455, porky.jpg)


This is the official containment thread for nazis, right-wingers, ancaps, etc.


- Ask questions

- Debate

- Post facts / evidence / etc.


- Spam

- Copy/paste walls of text

- Argue in bad faith

15 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



Well, no then. I either missed it or was before I visited the place.


Is there room in the left for people who are viscerally disgusted by niggers?



>Karl Marx

>think as programmed

Made by someone programmed into capitalist idoelogy. The fucking irony.


YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

1. Degenerates constitute an existential threat to civilization itself

2. All forms of modernism and especially communism fundamentally encourage degeneracy and decadence

Vid related for proof of assertion 1



>All forms of modernism and especially communism fundamentally encourage degeneracy and decadence

so the solution is to go back to feudalism…?

File: 4792ee3217913ae⋯.jpg (48.45 KB, 599x428, 599:428, rosa.jpg)


Thread for shitposting, chitchat, and general discussion.

42 posts and 10 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.





good posts


Question regarding the similarity and difference of (Althusserian) structural Marxism and Marxist autonomism and their apparent shared conflict with humanistic Marxism

It seems as if Althusser's structural Marxism had an influence on several post-structuralists / Marxists, such as Foucault (he defended Althusser until his death) and Deleuze (he also shared Althusser's dedication to neo-Spinozism), as well as some of the foremost autonomist Marxist theorists.

Could someone who've actually read the works of these theorists comment on this? To what extent is there a theoretical unity and discrepancy? Clearly Althusser were more Leninist/Maoist than the ones mentioned after (Foucault eventually falling into liberalism and Deleuze and the autonomists by contrast developing libertarian Marxist theory). They also seemed to share the opposition to humanistic Marxism. Althusser personally didn't seem to like that his theory got called 'structural' Marxism either, because he saw himself as a fierce critic of structuralism.

This has summarized my general confusion on the topic as of right now.



Honestly the whole conversation by both sides was pretty cringe.



i share your confusion. maybe some day we could have a well-read anon create an althusser reading list with commentary.



No u

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


Yesterday Richard Wolff gave a talk that covers his new book plus a lot of history about Marxism. I don't agree 100% with Richard Wolff but his talks are always excellent to introduce Marxist ideas to people, especially in countries like the U.S. which have very little education about Marxism.

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



Yeah, but to survive we could be talking up to $40 an hour here in burgerland, with $15 an hour being sort of a minimum for most places. For the majority of proles the co-op is only a slightly more realistic dream than muh small business because even co-ops require capital and other shit to function as a business. I see the (re)emerging labor movement as a better method than co-ops for the majority of folks working a job.



>I see the (re)emerging labor movement

Sorry to break it to you, but no such thing is happening, at least not in "the West".



In the U.S. there were 485,000 workers who went on strike last year. What do you call this?



You just threw a figure at me and you expect me to do the work of interpreting it for you? I don't know if that's all the same sector, same time, did the order come from a union, was it in response to something and so on.

I don't call it anything because I don't know what to call it because I don't have a context.


Wolff makes me believe that Marxism could be popular in america again. The hell with third worldist.

File: c5b35efd49da855⋯.jpg (325.56 KB, 500x500, 1:1, productive.jpg)


Post in this thread at least once a day to increase the productive forces of /marxism/.

380 posts and 18 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.








Marxists of all scattered places



File: 91bae02b10320b6⋯.png (362.28 KB, 765x320, 153:64, redrainbow2.png)


General thread for books and reading.

Post pdfs, articles, reviews, questions, and recommendations here.

16 posts and 9 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



Chapter assignation according to a predefined reading structure sounds sensible so long as it develops towards a greater understanding. A university level reading list for an introduction to Marxism may serve this purpose. Outlines can be written for the week ahead.


Introductory readings which flesh out specific chapters of Capital or small pieces from a broader set of Marx's writings would provide the confidence to move towards a deeper independent reading.

Selecting material according to what we want from this group sound sensible. The initial list does not need to be large, perhaps five or six weeks at most.

As an example recommendation and for somewhere (for us) to begin:




>recommending something you haven't read yourself

It's very short. At the very least you could look at what he says on the last few pages. Peter Singer is a utilitarian dork philosopher who wrote that book in the 70s, he wasn't a Marxist or Marx expert back then and he isn't one now.

Quote from this work: "Marx asserts that all profit arises from the extraction of surplus-value from living labour; machines, raw materials, and other forms of capital cannot generate profit, though they can increase the amount of surplus-value extracted. This seems obviously wrong. Future capitalists will not find their profits drying up as they dismiss the last workers from their newly automated factories." This is mixing up micro and macro. Marx never claimed that some capitalists can't make a big profit that way, his argument was about where profit in total, for the capitalist class as a whole, comes from.

There is also the usual wisdom in there about how communism can't work because we will never have total abundance and people are selfish.



Point taken; the idea behind the recommendation was that it represented a given wisdom most will have already encountered.

Do you have a following suggestion?


What topics would people like to read about?

I'd like to read about:

- Fundamental ideas of Marxist thought

- Lesser-known Marxist/Communist thinkers

- History of the USSR

- Utopian Socialism (Robert Owen and other reformers)


there are a lot of introductory books for Marxism but many of them are crap. The Marx-Engels Reader by Robert C. Tucker is pretty good but it's more like a 'selected works' than an intro text. I haven't read Wolff's latest book so i can't say whether it's decent or not.


File: 3d7fbe2ef923ed2⋯.jpg (662.45 KB, 3173x1988, 3173:1988, Whatpolactuallybelieves.jpg)


Libcom has some decent reading lists, if somewhat lacking.




>I would suggest using some basic intro texts to get some major ideas explained and then build off those. Ideally we'd have something that you could give to a person who knows zero about socialist theory and redpill them. This would be good for us too because we should know how to talk about the basics so we can explain our ideas to normies.

That goes beyond reading and into discussion and communication. The former can be handled well on a board, the latter is probably a poor place to look to a place as autistic as 8chan for.

>Capital isn't as hard to read as some people say. It's just fucking long.

If anyone here hasn't read it by now read Ruhle's abridgment first then go back and read the entire thing when you have time.


>What topics would people like to read about?

Stuff that isn't the greatest hits of reading lists and clubs, I've read most of that already. Situationists, Councilcoms, and social anarchists circa 1880s-1940s (it's a damn shame how much isn't translated into english) are currently of particular interest to me.

Previous [1] Next | Catalog | Nerve Center | Cancer
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ausneets / b2 / choroy / dempart / doomer / jenny / vichan / y2k ]