We know what labour vouchers are so I won't get into them. I've heard varying opinions about this. We know we can't have the vouchers be accumulable or transferable, as it would be a problem if someone has saved 10,000 hours over years and spends them all at once as now society needs to produce enough goods to accommodate such an unexpected spike.,

But how long should vouchers last? What is the logic to determine how long it should last?

I feel like the latter makes more sense because US labor movements have never been that strong. I might be wrong though.

Many vulgar economists claim that Marx's socio-political economic analysis is limited to the 19th century and that this has long been outdated, in the even more vulgar bourgeois economy the most ridiculous recurring attacks are constantly projected onto Marx's thought, between the Marxists who have washed out Marx's thought by making it a textbook filled with absolute truths or even the vulgar economists who constantly repeat the same formulas regarding Marx through this vulgar Marxism, Marx from all sides and all angles has been constantly mistreated for more than a century now, to find one's way best in this huge vulgar porridge one must first return to Marx, more precisely to his initial intentions when he was writing Capital; Marx never intended to analyze the capitalism of his specific era but that of its 'ideal average', the proletariat may have gone through the most varied conditions whether it be Fordism or Taylorism, its deep condition remains the same as if it were anchored deepest in the flesh of capital, no matter that working-class unity was broken and that this unity was severed into various pseudo social classes the proletarian still sells his labor power in exchange for a wage to produce surplus value, the claims of distinct 'social classes' that would have atomized the proletariat are nothing but subversions of capital to destroy the real struggle, capital is not immobile, it adapts, capital no longer necessarily needs to send its watchdogs into the production units, like what happened in Italy, it is enough for capital to destroy the base of the movement (Fordism) by sectioning production and relocating it to destroy the whole movement itself, we can therefore retain from this that the real struggle cannot be carried out by any specific working-class unity, if there is unity it must necessarily be a unity of negation of what we are within capital, the mistake of autonomy was to believe that rejecting structures was enough, the rejection of the modern man is necessary. Let us move now to the multiple fallacious arguments of the most vulgar bourgeois economy, the famous argument of the 'hole', it attributes to Marx a most vulgar substantialist labor theory of value, as if no one wants the hole I dug it would have no value and that this necessarily implies a marginalist theory of value, this constantly repeated argument misses the primary concept of the commodity: use value, yes it is obvious that if a thing is of utility to no one this will not be value, because as Marx very well pointed out a thing to be value must be use value for others, Marx even repeats in the section 'money or circulation' that a commodity must first make its perilous leap into money. Even though Marx analyzed capitalism in its ideal average he was indeed wrong about one thing, the fact that the money commodity would be part of this ideal average, history has therefore shown us that this is false, it has been a while since banks no longer rely on gold, this demonstrates further that money is the most absolute representative of social labor and that any physical atom does not matter as long as money as an 'excluded' thing continues to represent the set of commodities, Marx therefore did not intend to offer us a perfect doctrine but a materialistic critique of the world, which we must ourselves push to the end against Marx himself, 'Every judgment inspired by truly scientific criticism is welcome to me. With regard to the prejudices of so-called public opinion to which I have never made concessions, my motto is, now as before, the words of the great Florentine: Segui il tuo corso, e laisse dir le genti! [Follow your path and let people talk!]'—Marx, Marx was himself full of uncertainty, many ruptures of thought crossed him, if the most fallacious arguments against Marx were constantly projected it is first of all because Marx's economic critique was falsified into a vulgar substantialism, the critique must therefore be made against Marxist and anti-Marxist, Marx spoke of capital above all as a revolution of political economy, overturning a bourgeois science in its clearest principles, attributing Ricardo's substantialist formulas to Marx is nothing short of insulting. Marx therefore had his own fetishes whether for the machine or working-class unity, making an absolute doctrine out of the historical residues of Marx's thought is nothing short of anti-Marx, Marx bequeathed us a ferocious materialistic critique but also things specific to his time, capitalism changes constantly despite its ideal average, making a fixed doctrine of Marx's thought is at the same time anti-Marx when his materialism results in analyzing a world in constant change.

Probably the main reason why I still wouldn't consider myself a marxist it's because I can't understand his views on peasantry. Considering peasantry as a reactionary class just doesn't coincides with reality, because the most prominent revolutionary movements which can be considered socialist or left communist were led by peasants such as makhnovia or zapatistas. But I haven't read Marx that much except communist manifesto (I want to read das capital but now I'm reading some anarchist theory), so I think I could misunderstand him or even get caught in right communist propaganda. I'm asking that on this subredit because it seems like the most educated on Marx.

Are there any book shops that sell Left Communist literature that ship globally? I can find most of the texts online , but reading on a screen fries my delicate eyes

Indian, farmer, diagnosed with OCPD and undiagnosed ADHD. I know basic history and understanding of communism but not to the level of engaging in a debate with someone who's against communism. I only take notes digitally because I can edit, copy, paste whenever I learn new information, physical notetaking hurts me because if I get a new notetaking idea then the pages where I used the old idea will be a waste like I'll begin to despise myself (I'm going to therapy for this reason)

Due to my condition I can only focus on one thing. For ex, If I need to learn theory I'll only read theory for the whole day and won't be able to do any farmwork, can't follow any current affairs and I'll be left behind. If I follow current affairs then I can't do the rest. If I do farmwork then I'll be physically and mentally tired and call it a day off.

But there are a few other problems too and you can understand how my line of thoughts work. If I'm fixated on reading theory and come across a term or texts that mention some historical event then I can't move forward without understanding the whole thing. For ex. While reading the principles of communism I came across the word "profit" and I'm like "I need to understand capitalism, need to read adam smith, how profits and incentives worked in pre-capitalism era before moving on to the next line", and when I came across the term "Industrial revolution" I'm like "I need to read age of revolutions, fuck me napolean took over france right after french revolution how did that impact the revolution, is there any other example of people fucking over a victorious revolution in the name of leading.. \*google shows up reddit post "lenin hated stalin, he knew he was power hungry"\* man fuck me is this even true? now I have to read stalin to know whether he fucked up the revolution.." and the rabbit hole goes on and on.

And currently in India, there are a lot of things happening. Especially that as a communist that I need to engage in like student protests, where liberals misuse students for their personal gains etc etc but if I need to follow that then I can't make myself read theory. But if I engage in those things without theoretical knowledge I can't defend myself

I also have personal issues.

So amidst all these I often get depressed (obviously because I'm diagnosed with Comorbid anxiety with Dysthymia) and do meaningless things like playing online chess mindlessly, playing with my dog, walking in my farmland, watching porn as last resort to sleep because I can't reduce my headaches and stress caused by this chain of thoughts and overthinking otherwise. Literally procrastinating throughout all the events. I guess India is ripe enough for a revolution as my friend once said and I'm betraying it by doing nothing, lenin will also despise me.

I wish I had a well informed comrade with myself 24/7 irl and they'll answer every question that comes to my mind which will solve this situation easily but sadly I'm surrounded by regressive pro capitalist racist ethno-fascist people who are in need to be educated. But I can't do that with half baked knowledge.

So instead of doing the mindless activities when I feel stuck, I need some materials, speech which I can read at any time, any page and get the fire back in me, knock some sense into me, makes me forget my personal problems and give the revolutionary hope to move forward in faster pace so that I can join/contribution to the movement that's taking up shaping up right now

I want a critique on Cultural revolution , I think its a deviation from social revolution ( communism ) can you guys help me with link of ICP that criticise cultural revolution ?

Capitalism Rearms
World War and Communist Revolution
International Communist Party
Public Meeting and Q&A

Saturday 10 October

As the capitalist powers rearm and imperialist conflicts spread, humanity is again being driven toward the slaughter of world war. The bourgeoisie calls its armaments “defence” and its wars struggles for “peace” and “democracy,” but behind these slogans stands the struggle of rival capitalist states for markets, resources, and power. This talk will examine the march toward a third imperialist world war and defend the only proletarian answer: not pacifism or choosing between rival imperialisms, but the international class struggle against capitalism itself.
Venue
Social Justice Action Center
400 SE 12th Ave
Portland, OR
Join Online
Enter the link in secure browser for meeting access:
tinyurl.com/3rdckpm8

International Times
11:00 AM PDT | 2:00 PM EDT | 7:00 PM BST | 8:00 PM CET | 9:00 PM AST
For more information and meeting links, visit:
www.international-communist-party.org

Hi. I do not call myself a left communist but I have been influenced by primarily Italian Leftcom theory for a few years even if I disagree with some of it. I did not know where else to ask about this as all other marxist subreddits that IK of in my opinion are full of people who do really do not know what they are talking about for the most part.

I am not as educated as I would like to be (working on remedying that; a few years ago I read most of the fundamental Marx and Engels texts as well as some Lenin, Bordiga, Althusser, and a few other texts here and there from other theorists and groups like Endnotes. Working through Capital vol 1 ATM and understanding how much I missed out on by not doing that first). But I have long desired to organize, or just to do anything other than read. But it wasn't until relatively recently that I could start seriously considering it for multiple personal reasons.

I do not necessarily have high hopes for what is happening in Spain right now but I think organization might be more relevant now than it has been in a while.

Are there any groups worth organizing with that are not Stalinists or do not really have a clear view of the principles of communism or is it worth biting the bullet and joining one of these?

I only know of some parties. Mostly MLs and Trots. PCTE, PCPE, CJS, CRT.

There are also some theoretical publishing (?) groups, like Grupo Barbaria and Balance y Avante who seem to be more leftcom leaning. But they do not seem to have a properly organised structure or party to speak of and idk if it's possible to join them when I am not as educated in theory as I would like to be. I am pretty sure that all of these groups are present at least in the Madrid encampment.

Is it worth just entering one of these parties? I would probably go with the Trotskyists frankly. Apologies if I said something stupid.

I'm looking to get involved in left communist politics, how do I go about joining a group or a party? I'm read in Marxism and I'm based in the UK.

In my opinion there's no marxist-leninism, only leninism. Why? Because I'am not sure Marx would have agreed with the ideas of Lenin. But let's stick to marxist-leninism as a description to avoid confusion.

My critique of marxist-leninism is that the people who subscribe to its ideas of organisation is that they think you can separate the means to an end from the end itself. They want an authoritarian party to take over the state and bring about socialism. Their imagination is that after this is done, the party and the state would abolish itself. I think this is very unlikely to happen. We have several examples of and how it went wrong. Independent socialist/anarchist movements got crushed violently by force.

That's why I think we need to create an alternative society right now and expand it and get people on board. We need to withdraw as much structure as possible from the state and capitalism. A nice concept is that of prefigurative politics, which is defined by Paul Raekstad and Sofa Saio Gradin as:

**We define prefigurative politics as the deliberate experimental implementation of desired future social relations and practices in the here-and-now.**

If you are interested in it, their book is called *Prefigurative Politics Building Tomorrow Today*.

Is their any meaningful difference between the 2?

Also what are some good readings on Historical Materialism?

Here is the full quote: "Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists. On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution. The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital."

I understand how the bourgeois family is based on private gain, with family capital, inheritance and so on. But I don't understand how the family itself is absent among the proletarians.

my dad's a communist and he said I should start reading theory, and I'm also very curious abt it and wanna learn more. How and from where should I start reading theory? sorry if this is a stupid question

and what are the texts that i can read about this topic

This post was firstly addressed for anarchists but I think a lot of leftcoms would agree too because a lot of them are either antistateist or want to destroy the state at some point. I consider myself something in-between anarchist and leftcom.

I’m required to write a year long research paper, 6-8 pages, on the Russian Revolution for history class. I want to study it critically and form a hypothesis (I already have a general understanding of the Russian revolution and its potential) around the outcomes of it. Primarily aimed towards the question, “Did the Russian Revolution produce communism; if it didn’t, at what point, and what events happened during its history prevented it from doing so; and if it did, at what point, and what events happened during its history which allowed it to?” (My understanding and answer is no. It didn’t. And its potential was essentially gone circa early-mid 20’s)

I have a base understanding of the Russian revolution, the Bolsheviks role, Lenin’s theory of the state and revolution, etc. I just need detailed, critical and reliable information. I don’t care if anything is written by non-communists, just as long as it is factual and logical. I am, of course, also open to reading books or texts by the anti-Soviet communists as well.

At the moment I am reading the pamphlet, ‘the Bolsheviks and Workers’ control’ by Maurice Brinton. But I am planning to read far more than that. As this is an in depth study.

Text

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

This is mostly to bordigists, and I’m not talking about bourgeois democracy

What would be a real critique of egoism? Or better yet I suppose just a set of reasons its for example anti marxist. Reading marx and it feels as if he is blatantly strawmanning stirners actual writings (ie calling him idealist). I couldve probably asked this elsewhere but I honestly trust leftcoms more tbh

The more educated people in this subreddit, please provide me with texts or debates on these issues, I want to learn, tell me your opinions, I know that the councilors and the int Comm party have different opinions on this

It is increasingly common for much of discourse by nominal socialists on the internet to devolve into questions of terminology, like "is China socialist", "is such and such a revisionist" etc. I find myself increasingly frustrated with the way in which these debates will eschew questions about the nature of commodities within an economy, in favor of rote imposition of particular definitions over others as the singular "correct" definition, perhaps with an "authority" in the form of a pamphlet of Lenin, a snippet of Merriam Webster, etc., or maybe a platitude about "worker ownership over the means of production".

My question is in lieu of having been banned from r/ultraleft for this comment. (Obviously this post here is not a ban appeal in the slightest, nor is it to whine being banned, and I fully hope for objections to my comment to be made and expounded). I presume disagreement lay in my use of "leftist" as a descriptor of an individual aligned with the admittedly amorphous conception of the "left", including Marxists, which appears to be at odds with left-communist conceptualization of communism as outside the "left", and thus not leftists, but this obviously begs the question of how the term is to be defined in the first place...

There is on one hand the contemporary appearance of the term leftist within broader society in reference to this amorphous assemblage of movements, and on the other this particular conception by left-communists, who are perhaps much more in tune with proletarian consciousness. How are we to resolve this distinction?

Are we to totally eschew all prescriptions of bourgeois thought because they are bourgeois? Such a practice would lead to communist movement being unable to supersede that which it chooses to never come into contact with...

Are we to contextualize on a case-by-case basis, as in to have within a particular text or setting mathematical declarations, such as, "let leftist such that a leftist is an individual who operate within the left-wing of bourgeois society, and is unable to comprehend Marxism"? This too appears unacceptable in its adherence to classical logical tropes of language and terminology wholly alienated from the social conditions of its creation...

I'm most inclined to consider toleration of terms and phrases carrying multiple conflicting definitions, and changing definitions in accordance with social relations, such as how "value" appears within feudal relations in proportion to use, and in capitalist relations, "value" appears in proportion to labor-time. But, this toleration for shiftiness may well impede meaningful discourse if one can infinitely tailor a claim into defensibility like so: "Alright, labor is the source of all wealth, in consideration that I use the term 'wealth' in context to the 'wealth of nations' referring to the productive sum of exchange-values" etc. As such, how are we to meaningfully object to "misuse" of language without simply falling back into mere recitation of dictionary definitions, and dictionary-like definitions?

My question here is not peculiar to the term "leftist", it is merely the context. I am hoping to understand the means by which Marxists are to consider meanings of terminology.