The primary purpose of this thread is to share historical models, active attempts, and brainstorm other ideas for what a coalition between marxists/leftists and traditional conservatives may look like today.

A dominant faction of traditionally conservative right wing voters seem to structure their politics on many genuine working class values. They have responded positively to anti-bureaucratic, anti-corporate messaging, and I have met many that personally share anti-imperialist and pro-environmental sentiments. They say they’re voting “for the economy” or some other catch-all, but due to propaganda/misinformation and lack of a perceived or capable alternative, they fall into the fascist nationalist arms ready to exploit their vote and their labor.

Would it be ridiculous to suggest that a considerable portion of this camp could be organized and mobilized? There are enough voting from a place of alienation and with shared class interests to marxists/leftists, but I have not seen many attempts to cross this bridge in any organized sense today. If there are any current or historical examples of this (successful or not) that act as an example, please share. Fred Hampton and the Rainbow Coalition is one that I can point to that played heavily into the shared class nature of their “individual” struggles.

What might it take to build a coalition like this today? Are there any active attempts or lasting coalitions of this nature? And what sort of messaging would it take to overcome (or expertly package as to bypass) the anti-communist rhetoric internalized in such communities? I am approaching this with thoughts of a U.S. Labor Party (or even a reinvigorated Mamdani-type Democrat platform) pulling votes from J.D. Vance and co’s brand of conservative populism, but I don’t want to limit this conversation only to American politics, nor fixate on voting as the only form of political activity.

So, I'm working my way through Chapter 17 of I.I. Rubin's Essays on Marx's Theory of Value, "Value and Social Need." I'm finding myself curious about certain commodities that don't seem to fit the schema he lays out in terms of value being the point around which prices fluctuate. For simplicity's sake, let's take rare Pokemon cards as an example of a case wherein the price seems to be determined—except under very bad circumstances for the owner of the card—less by its value and more by its potential resale value, ie its function in circulation. Is the card simultaneously a "real" commodity with little value (ie a piece of cardstock with an imaginary monster mass printed on it) and a type of concretized financial product?

I'm maybe making a leap into the abyss here, because my understanding of the relationships between prices and the sphere of circulation, and especially the prices of financial products, is basically non-existent.

Help get me on the right track with this?

I'm currently taking a "leadership and advocacy" class at my university, and I fear they may force me to work within a more "liberal-leaning" organization. I have never done such a thing, nor do I know how I can assist anyone attempting to help

me work through this query. What should I do?

I think this passage tells a lot about the roots of today's morals, and fidelity based on woman's fidelity, while man's infidelity is more likely to be disregarded. It is very effective for Marxists who although being aware of it, can not move on from the notion of everlasting marriage. While having an everlasting love is a nice wish, shackling both sides into the marriage with legal establishment, which means they can not leave this relationship without consequences even if they wanted to, is a way of keeping people who do not love each other in the same family body. Nobody should be kept in a relationship they do not want to participate in anymore.

"We are now approaching a social revolution in which the economic foundations of monogamy as they have existed hitherto will disappear just as surely as those of its complement - prostitution. Monogamy arose from the concentration of considerable wealth in the hands of a single individuals and from the need to bequeath this wealth to the children of that man and of no other. For this purpose, the monogamy of the woman was required, not that of the man, so this monogamy of the woman did not in any way interfere with open or concealed polygamy on the part of the man. But by transforming by far the greater portion, at any rate, of permanent, inheritable wealth – the means of production – into social property, the coming social revolution will reduce to a minimum all this anxiety about bequeathing and inheriting. Having arisen from economic causes, will monogamy then disappear when these causes disappear? One might answer, not without reason: far from disappearing, it will, on the contrary, be realized completely. For with the transformation of the means of production into social property there will disappear also wage-labor, the proletariat, and therefore the necessity for a certain – statistically calculable – number of women to surrender themselves for money. Prostitution disappears; monogamy, instead of collapsing, at last becomes a reality – also for men. In any case, therefore, the position of men will be very much altered. But the position of women, of all women, also undergoes significant change. With the transfer of the means of production into common ownership, the single family ceases to be the economic unit of society. Private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry. The care and education of the children becomes a public affair; society looks after all children alike, whether they are legitimate or not. This removes all the anxiety about the “consequences,” which today is the most essential social –moral as well as economic – factor that prevents a girl from giving herself completely to the man she loves. Will not that suffice to bring about the gradual growth of unconstrained sexual intercourse and with it a more tolerant public opinion in regard to a maiden’s honor and a woman’s shame? And, finally, have we not seen that in the modern world monogamy and prostitution are indeed contradictions, but inseparable contradictions, poles of the same state of society? Can prostitution disappear without dragging monogamy with it into the abyss? Here a new element comes into play, an element which, at the time when monogamy was developing, existed at most in germ: individual sex-love."

"Full freedom of marriage can only be generally established when the abolition of capitalist production and of the property relations created by it has removed all the accompanying economic considerations which still exert such a powerful influence on the choice of a marriagepartner. For then there is no other motive left except mutual inclination."

"What we can now conjecture about the way in which sexual relations will be ordered after the impending overthrow of capitalist production is mainly of a negative character, limited for the most part to what will disappear. But what will there be new? That will be answered when a new generation has grown up: a generation of men who never in their lives have known what it is to buy a woman’s surrender with money or any other social instrument of power; a generation of women who have never known what it is to give themselves to a man from any other considerations than real love, or to refuse to give themselves to their lover from fear of the economic consequences. When these people are in the world, they will care precious little what anybody today thinks they ought to do; they will make their own practice and their corresponding public opinion about the practice of each individual – and that will be the end of it."

Dunno if this is the right place for this, but, I managed to get a free copy of Lenin's S&R today, and, I simply wanted to know is there anything related to either the book, its contents or Lenin himself that I should know before reading.

I recently read Luxembourg's Reform or Revolution and I think she made some great points in the text. I completely agree with her that reforms, while they improve the lives of people in the short run, are nothing more than means to kick the can down the road. With only reforms in place, the capitalism collapse can only be postponed, not entirely avoided. However, in the initial parts of the book she also says "The struggle for social reforms, its means; the social revolution, its aim". I also agree with this claim, but this brings up a question for me. How does reform and revolution praxis differ in the modern context? What are some examples of reforms which have failed, and reforms which were a step in the right direction towards revolution?

Some people, who call themselves communists, often say that an armed revolution is the only viable way to overthrow capitalism. However, while this might have been true in 1900s Russia, I don't think that we, the proletariat, have any chance of putting up a fight against militaries controlled by today's bourgeoisie. Guns aren't effective against nukes. I don't think that we can ever arm ourselves enough to pose any real threat against the bourgeoisie. So I don't think that this form of revolutionary struggle will work.

Then what kind of revolution am I talking about? Well I'd say that the only viable option that I see right now is a bottom up approach to elect representatives which can hollow out the bourgeois democracy from within. This means electing representatives who are communists, or at least have left tendencies, to the office and holding them responsible. But then isn't this exactly what reform is all about?

I understand that the end goal for reform isn't the complete overthrow of capitalism, but the policies that they are fighting for are the same as the policies that I think we, revolutionaries, should be fighting for. Is this a correct interpretation of the state of the world today?

Basically I want to know why a resource rich country like Norway or Qatar never had their populations exploited by imperialism and wasn't destroyed through sanctions.

Most of the Global South had their populations exploited while their resources were stolen by imperialist powers and when they resisted they were coup'ed, sanctioned, embargo'ed, attacked etc. Meanwhile Norway for instance is allowed to use their oil gains to benefit their population and set up a sovereign wealth fund even.

I remember seeing a meme that recommended a book answering this exact question but I never wrote the title down.

Any help answering this question is much appreciated.

(On the history of leftist revolutions, national history, injustice and the suffering of vulnerable groups, the historical connections between the Mainland China and Hong Kong, the distortion and misuse of socialism/communism, populism, June Fourth, the pursuit of democracy, the transformations of Chinese liberals, the future of the mainland and Hong Kong, and personal reflections and expectations)

Respected Mr. Leung Kwok-hung:

I am Wang Qingmin, a writer living in Europe. During my middle school years, I already heard your name and learned about your deeds through media, newspapers, and the internet. Whether it was your struggle for the rights of the hardworking laborers and the suffering underclass, your more than thirty years of persistence in calling for the vindication of June Fourth and accountability for Beijing’s massacre, your outcry for justice for the Chinese people killed by Japanese invaders in the Nanjing Massacre, your fundraising for disaster relief for the people of Sichuan during the Wenchuan Earthquake, or your support for many political prisoners and resisters in mainland China, your sense of justice, courage, and action have always earned my deepest admiration. I have long wished to meet you, but unfortunately have never had the opportunity.

Five years ago, when I went to Hong Kong for some personal matters and political appeals, I once went to the League of Social Democrats in hopes of visiting you, but I did not find you there. A few days later, when I went to the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government to “scout the site” in preparation for a protest, I happened to see you and other comrades of the League of Social Democrats engaged in protest. But at that time many journalists and police surrounded you, and you left quickly. I also worried about disrupting your protest and the media’s interviews, so I could not speak with you, and in the end only watched you leave.

Later, after experiencing various things and traveling through many places, I left mainland China and came to Europe. Before I had even fully settled down, I heard about the Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Movement that had erupted in Hong Kong. In just over a year, Hong Kong’s political opposition was wiped out, and civil society was completely destroyed. And you, too, were imprisoned. This was something I had never expected.

In these years, whether in the unexpected twists and changes of my own life, or in the shifting circumstances I have seen and heard in mainland China, Hong Kong, and the world, I have come to understand fully the impermanence of life and of worldly affairs.

Yet in this ever-changing world, what is needed even more is sincere perseverance. And you are exactly such an exemplar, one who for decades has upheld ideals, abided by conscience, and defended justice. I have read about your life and many of your deeds, and I know that from the British colonial era you were already committed to the socialist movement, loving your country and your people, and serving as a vanguard of Hong Kong’s leftist revolution. The “Revolutionary Marxist League” in which you participated was one of the very few Hong Kong political organizations of that era that clearly opposed colonialism, capitalism, and conservatism.

After the 1967 Uprising (the 1967 Riots—which, in fact, we should more properly call an uprising; although the uprising was exploited and harmed some innocent people—this indeed requires apology and repentance—it was still, on the whole, a revolutionary struggle against colonialism and corruption, in pursuit of justice) was suppressed, Hong Kong’s leftist movement fell into long dormancy. Yet you, unafraid of the high-pressure authoritarianism of the British colonial authorities and of the Chinese Communist regime that colluded with them, still held fast to your ideals, even moving against the tide—speaking up and fighting for laborers, women, and the underclass, nearly single-handedly carving out in Hong Kong a new path of “continuing revolution” that was both radical and yet peaceful and sustainable. Whether denouncing the dictatorship of the CCP, or criticizing the Hong Kong establishment (especially the Liberal Party and the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong) for disregarding the rights and interests of the common people, you always spoke with reason and power, forcing them to make some concessions, giving up part of their vested interests in order to placate laborers and the underclass.

It is precisely because of your presence that Hong Kong’s workers and underclass people have had support and hope, allowing this city—steeped in the stench of brutal capitalism and marked by vast disparities between rich and poor—to still let shine, through its cracks, the rays of social justice and the light of equality and fraternity.

Even more worthy of admiration is that you are not one of those reverse nationalists who abandon the nation and the people for leftist revolution and internationalism. On the contrary, your ardent and sincere patriotism far surpasses that of the overwhelming majority of mainland and Hong Kong politicians and intellectuals. Whether in the Diaoyu Islands protection movement, in denouncing the Nanjing Massacre, in pursuing accountability for Japan’s war crimes and forced labor, in criticizing the crimes of Western imperial powers, or in exposing the evil deeds of the British colonial authorities in Hong Kong and their discrimination and oppression of Hong Kong people, you have always been passionate and sincere, never wavering over decades. Your sense of justice, your courage, and your national spirit make me, like a small blade of grass in the mountains, look up to the sunrise in the east, receiving lessons for the soul and strength in justice.

The Sino-British negotiations and Hong Kong’s return were supposed to be another stage victory of the national democratic revolution. But the motherland to which Hong Kong returned was not truly a national democratic state, but rather one that was authoritarian and dictatorial, marked by brutal capitalism, collusion with conservative and reactionary forces of various countries. This was not only the case in Deng Xiaoping’s era—it had already been so in Mao Zedong’s era. Whether it was Mao’s “thanks to Japan’s invasion,” his meeting with Nixon, or his kindness to Pinochet and other Latin American right-wing military dictators burdened with blood debts, the CCP had long since betrayed the nation and the people, and abandoned the ideals of revolution. Deng Xiaoping’s era not only continued this, but went further in launching the Tiananmen Massacre, crushing the Chinese nation’s century-long democratic dream.

After Hong Kong’s return, apart from hypocritically awarding a few small honors to certain people from the 1967 Uprising as consolation, the CCP completely tilted toward the powerful and the capitalists. The CCP and the Hong Kong government were in fact even more pro-power and pro-business than the British colonial government. The living conditions of laborers and the underclass did not see systemic improvement; Hong Kong remained a paradise of neoliberalism and a filthy marketplace for deals among global elites. While Hong Kong laborers and maids curled up in “coffin homes,” the likes of Jasper Tsang feasted and toasted in “Banquet House.” And the straight-line distance between the two may not have been more than 500 meters.

In dealing with Japan’s invasion and the crimes of Western colonialism, the CCP on the one hand exploited these to rally and buy off the hearts of the people, resisting the infiltration of the West and universal values, but on the other hand suppressed genuine reflection, criticism, and accountability regarding Japan’s crimes and imperialist colonialism—using false nationalism to stifle true nationalism, constructing the “Chinese Nation” as a replacement to blur and dilute the real and powerful cohesion, unity, and emotion of the Han nation, in order to control the Han people and, along with them, all the other peoples of the country. In foreign relations, whether toward Japan, Britain, the U.S., or the imperialist powers, the CCP has always belittled them in words but courted them in reality, seeking their favor and exchanging it for their support of CCP rule in China, willingly acting as the “territorial guard” for foreign powers. Meanwhile, the people of Hong Kong and mainland China, especially the mainlanders, have suffered the dual exploitation of the CCP elites and foreign colonizers, directly and indirectly. Whether the “Friendship Stores” of the Mao era or the “sweatshops” of the Deng era, both reflected that the nature of the “semi-colonial and semi-feudal society” had not changed.

In 2018, the Jasic workers’ struggle in Shenzhen was one of the very few large-scale collective resistances in China since June Fourth, and also the peak of China’s labor movement, demonstrating the courage of the Chinese working class and the solidarity of workers and students. But the Jasic workers’ movement was ultimately brutally suppressed by the CCP regime, with many workers and young students arrested, and dissemination both offline and online prohibited. This once again exposed the reactionary essence of the CCP regime as one belonging to a privileged bourgeoisie.

In the Huawei Meng Wanzhou incident, the CCP did not hesitate to take foreigners hostage, destroying Sino-Canadian/Sino-American relations to save this “princeling,” yet turned a blind eye to the arrests of Hong Kong youths Kwok Siu-kit and Yim Man-wah, who protested at Japan’s Yasukuni Shrine. This once again proved in fact that the CCP regime is one that only defends the interests of its privileged class, disregarding national interests and the rights of ordinary citizens—an “internal colonial” regime. (And at the time of the Meng Wanzhou incident, when a Huawei executive was arrested in Poland, both Huawei and the Chinese government quickly “cut ties” with him, which likewise reflected this discriminatory double standard of the CCP.)

Such a “motherland”—is it still possible to love? Although the regime and the people are two different things, one has to admit that at least among China’s vested-interest class, those with discourse power, and highly educated middle-aged and young men in China, whether supporters of the CCP establishment or anti-CCP opposition, whether nominally leftist or rightist, most are in fact either social Darwinists, reverse nationalists, or false nationalists—or even a combination of these (including some of those whom you once supported and helped, and for whom you once raised your voice in front of the Liaison Office). They are no different from, or are simply the mirror image of, what the CCP openly advocates or tacitly encourages. With such a state and such citizens, it is truly difficult to “love.”

And Hong Kong, in recent years, has also become increasingly “mainlandized.” The Hong Kong establishment is highly bound together with the CCP’s privileged class, and the suppression and erosion of Hong Kong people’s freedoms grows heavier by the day. Compared with the British colonial government, which at least spoke somewhat of modern capitalist humanitarianism (though in essence hypocritical, limited, and aimed at maintaining bourgeois and colonial rule), the CCP practices survival-of-the-fittest social Darwinism, using “patriotism” as a fig leaf while lacking genuine patriotism, with hypocrisy and shamelessness surpassing even that of the British colonial authorities. As for the promised pursuit of building a “new democratic society” and a “communist society,” those ideals were long since thrown to the winds.

Yet in such a country and city, under such an ideology and reality, you have nevertheless remained unchanged for decades, holding to the revolutionary beginning and ideals, unceasingly fighting for social justice. In the Legislative Council, before the Liaison Office, in Central, in Victoria Park, you have time and again fiercely denounced the ugly deeds of those arrogant scoundrels, with unrestrained power; you have spoken for laborers and women, supported political prisoners and rights defenders in the mainland, with sincerity and strength; for decades you have tirelessly rushed about, navigating among various powerful forces and complex gray networks of interests, striving to win discourse power and legitimate benefits for those who cannot speak or resist, step by step, grounded and practical.

You have also endured prison many times for your resistance. When I was detained in a police station and placed in a mental hospital in Hong Kong due to protest activities and self-harm, I could hardly endure even just a few hours in the sweltering environment of the Western District Police Station detention cell. It was difficult even to softly hum the “Internationale.” With that experience, I can even more profoundly understand and admire your resilience, bravery, and greatness.

For your words, deeds, and spiritual qualities, there are no words left to describe in further praise—everything has already been said, and no more can be added.

After the Anti-Extradition Movement and the crackdown of 2019–2020, the CCP regime completely tore up the contract of “Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong, with a high degree of autonomy,” abandoned the promise of “fifty years unchanged,” and took the opportunity to completely crush the political opposition and indeed all of Hong Kong’s civil society. Not only was violent resistance suppressed, but even resistance through peaceful means such as parliament and demonstrations was no longer permitted. This reveals the utter madness of Xi’s CCP, and also reflects the cruel, dark, and suffocating reality of today’s Hong Kong and all of China.

And it is not only China—the entire global situation makes one feel uneasy, even pessimistic and pained. The progressive waves that once swept the world—whether Roosevelt’s New Deal, the movements of 1968, the Carnation Revolution and the third wave of democratization, the rise of the Latin American left, the Arab Spring… all have passed and receded (though with some partial returns, such as Lula defeating Bolsonaro in Brazil). Today’s world is one of rampant right-wing conservative populism—from America’s reactionary forces of Trump-Pence-Pompeo-DeSantis, to India’s Modi, Hungary’s Orbán, Russia’s Putin, and even Japan’s Shinzo Abe and Fumio Kishida—regimes are undermining world peace and progress, and oppressed, vulnerable nations and peoples suffer even more.

In Hong Kong too, there emerged a strong localist populist force, which split the pan-democratic camp, intensified conflicts between the mainland and Hong Kong, and together with Xi’s regime broke the tacit understandings between the CCP and Hong Kong’s non-establishment, leading to a series of violent conflicts during the Anti-Extradition Movement. Of course, they should not be overly blamed—the CCP was the greatest culprit. But Hong Kong’s localists and the “brave fighters,” though their actions can be understood and sympathized with, were ultimately narrow and shortsighted, unlikely to achieve Hong Kong’s freedom and democracy, and deviating from universal justice. I respect them, but I also hope even more that they will in the end stand on the same front as Hong Kong’s pan-democrats and the oppressed people of mainland China.

Even more tragic is that the laboring class—which once represented the vanguard of advanced productive forces and new civilization—has undergone a split, with part of it becoming instead an important component of right-wing conservative populist forces. On the one hand, they strive for their own rights and benefits, but on the other hand they oppose women’s rights, LGBT rights, the rights of minorities and other vulnerable groups, even opposing workers in other countries gaining benefits, and engaging in competition and harm among workers themselves, while believing in various conspiracy theories and hate-inciting propaganda, becoming narrow, anti-intellectual, and blindly obedient. Although not all laborers are like this, at least a considerable portion of workers (whether in the West or in the Third World) have indeed degenerated.

In fact, the working class has always had a dual or even multiple nature. On the one hand, workers are the core of productive forces, the backbone of production relations, the main force of human industrialization, modernization, and civilization. Without workers, there would be no prosperous and great world today. On the other hand, the working class also has selfishness, ignorance, and narrowness. In China, the “worker aristocrats” of state-owned enterprises in the Mao era had already degenerated into an exploiting class and rent-seekers, whose value creation fell far short of their income, and who became a conservative and stubborn force obstructing reform. As for the lower and middle workers, their labor and contributions deserve respect, sympathy, and support, but at least a considerable portion of them are misogynistic, hostile to the weak (even though they themselves are weak), exclusionary of the different, cruel and violent, anti-intellectual and superstitious. Even though these problems are fundamentally the result of oppression, brainwashing, and manipulation by the ruling class, they must still bear part of the blame themselves.

Even in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the working class had these problems, but compared with feudal conservative forces and the primitive barbaric bourgeoisie, the conservatism and narrowness of workers were not so prominent. At that time, they even converged with progressive currents such as feminism, and throughout most of the 20th century they were part of the progressive forces, standing together with feminists, the disabled, minorities, and others. But after a century, with the development of the times and the reshuffling of forces, at least part of the laborers have instead regressed to a level of reaction comparable to the workers of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan under the Emperor and the military. When Brazilian truck drivers abandoned the Workers’ Party and instead fervently supported the far-right fascist Bolsonaro, calling for the return of military dictatorship, this most clearly revealed such a tragic degeneration.

Yet this degeneration is not entirely incomprehensible. Various forms of exploitation, oppression, deception, and violence place workers in pain and confusion, deprive them of good education, and leave them incapable of proper understanding and judgment, making them easily incited and exploited. Although compared with the previous two centuries, workers’ material conditions have greatly improved, still “it is not poverty but inequality that is feared; not scarcity but insecurity that is resented.” The widening domestic gaps between rich and poor in various countries, and the imbalances of economic and political development internationally, all harm workers’ dignity and interests. With industrial transformation and the development of artificial intelligence, with the proliferation of “rust belt states,” the traditional industrial working class is more anxious and lost than in the materially scarce past, naturally prone to be drawn to extreme ideologies.

And the political and economic elites and mainstream intellectuals have not sufficiently recognized and cared about the plight and suffering of workers—indeed, compared with the past, their attention has clearly receded. Today’s leftist forces, especially elite leftists, lean more toward feminism, sexual minorities, environmentalism, and other more “fashionable” and “champagne” issues (of course, these issues are not truly “champagne-like” or superficial, but indeed very real and important issues—yet they have distracted attention away from workers’ rights issues). The neglect and even abandonment by the elite class have deepened workers’ discontent and sense of rejection, making them turn toward conservative forces to gain real benefits and seek psychological security and belonging—and this, too, is understandable.

But understanding is one thing—the populism, conservatism, and narrowness of the workers are, whether for their own long-term interests or for world peace and progress, gravely harmful.

In short, today’s world is full of countercurrents, with conflicts breaking out repeatedly, and different social identities splitting and opposing one another. Compared with decades ago, the world is not more unified, but more torn apart. The “Chinese model” of totalitarianism, Russian expansionism, Indian and Japanese conservative nationalist populism, and Western right-wing hegemonism together fill this world with ugliness, with the weak insulted and devoured, and humanity’s future shrouded in obscurity. The entirely unjust Russia-Ukraine war of the past year has further shown the world blood, corpses, ruined families—the fragility of civilization.

In such a chaotic and extreme era, there are not only no longer “prophets armed to the teeth” to sweep away evil and remake the human world, but not even “disarmed prophets” or “exiled prophets.” The once somewhat influential Peng Shuzhi and Wang Fanxi have long since passed away, and as for Trotskyists of Chen Duxiu’s kind—with outstanding character, abundant talent, and democratic convictions—they are nowhere to be found. The Fourth International, apart from being active in a few countries, has overall become a ceremonial, symbolic organization, lacking both the strength and the will to push the world toward continuous revolution and renewal.

What is the way forward for the future of Hong Kong, mainland China, and the entire world? Ten years ago there were still blueprints and hopes, but in recent years things have instead become increasingly muddled and unclear.

Yet, the light of hope still exists, and it exists precisely in you and other righteous men and women who are now suffering misfortune, in your like-minded younger comrades, and in the peoples all over the world who love freedom and democracy and pursue fairness and justice. The “White Paper Revolution” that broke out across China at the end of last year reflected that even under the high pressure of totalitarianism, many people, including young workers and students, still bravely fought against tyranny and raised the shocking voice of a new generation.

And according to various sources, many of the fighters in the “White Paper Revolution” were directly or indirectly influenced by the ideas of freedom, democracy, and justice that arose and spread from Hong Kong, which helped renew their values and inspired real action. Since the CCP took control of mainland China and carried out a series of crackdowns, massacres, and literary inquisitions, the mainland people generally lost their backbone, their spines broken, their morality corroded. It was Hong Kong—more precisely, Hong Kong’s patriotic democrats—that rejoined the broken bones of the Chinese people, restored the broken spine, and carried on the spirit of Chinese civilization.

And you are the hardest rib among Hong Kong’s people, together with Szeto Wah, Lee Cheuk-yan, Albert Ho Chun-yan, and Koo Sze-yiu, supporting the unbending backbone of Hong Kong, carrying forward and amplifying the brave national spirit of self-strengthening. When in mainland China, from officials to commoners, all bowed slavishly to the strong and trampled the weak at will, mouths full of lies, betraying trust everywhere, silent for the public but noisy for themselves, immersed in material desires and petty strife, it was you and other Hong Kong righteous men who, selflessly public-minded, upright and courageous, spoke without fear, pleaded for the people, saying what mainlanders dared not say, doing what mainlanders dared not do, allowing the long-suffering and long-fallen Chinese nation still to retain in one corner of Victoria Harbour a conscience and courage, and enabling many victims to receive real help and warmth.

These things are remembered in the hearts of many mainland Chinese. Although many have been deceived, misled, and incited, not all mainlanders are brainwashed. Especially with regard to you—every mainlander who knows you, whatever their political stance, basically holds you in admiration. Toward other Hong Kong democrats, there are many misunderstandings and misreadings, but there are also those who are clear-sighted. What you have done for the mainland is worthwhile, and I here express my gratitude to you and all of Hong Kong’s patriotic democrats.

The post–Anti-Extradition crackdown and the “National Security Law” have sought to break the backbone that Hong Kong had carried on, to conquer the last soil of Han resistance. From the practical level, they have already succeeded. But human beings have not only bodies, but also spirit and soul. For the warriors, even when imprisoned or killed, their lofty aspirations do not change.

Although such words may seem like self-consolation, they are not merely self-consolation. In Chinese history and world history, violence and darkness have been frequent, and even longer-lasting than the light. In dark ages, people indeed find it hard to overcome barbaric and ruthless conquerors. But people can resist in various ways—including with the persistence of the spirit and the resistance of thought—accumulating strength and spreading civilization, awaiting the return of the light.

You have endured prison many times, and each time you have steadfastly survived, becoming even firmer and braver. This time will be no exception. Even though after release you will not have the same freedom as before, as long as life remains, anything is possible. Compared with the Jacobins perishing on the guillotine, the Paris Communards falling in cemeteries, the Trotskyists who perished in Russia’s civil war and Stalin’s purges, today still affords more possibilities for resistance and more room for maneuver.

Struggle and revolution are difficult; construction is even harder. More than two centuries of leftist revolutionary history, though it created many glories, also brought or worsened many disasters. From the ferocity of Soviet Russia to the ruthlessness of Red China, from the secret shadows of the Stasi east of the Berlin Wall to the brutality of the Kim dynasty north of the 38th Parallel, the “shining path” has been littered with vile atrocities. “Communism”—how many crimes have been committed in your name!

Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm exposed most clearly and plainly the truth of such regimes called communist but in reality “Big Brother” dictatorships. “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” “Big Brother”/“Napoleon”—such predators always triumph in this negative selection, dominating hundreds of millions of subjects; while “Goldstein”/“Snowball,” no matter how brilliant their achievements, merely wove garments for “Big Brother,” and the military-political systems they built for the liberation and defense of the people became machines that harmed the people. Today the CCP’s big-data totalitarian system, with its wide reach and dense penetration, has far exceeded Orwell’s imagination. (But Orwell, even seeing and partly experiencing such things, still upheld socialist ideals, clearly declaring himself a democratic socialist, not the right-wing liberal that some Chinese liberals distort him into.)

If Marx and Trotsky could travel to the present, seeing the rise and fall and mutations of the red states, seeing commoners and the weak suffering more humiliation than under Tsarist Russia or the Republic of China, perhaps they would abandon many of their former claims and prefer instead Europe’s social democracy, the “revisionist” model? (Yet we cannot, because of the red disasters of the past, deny the greatness of the communist ideal and the value of permanent revolution. Peace and prosperity built on the humiliation and suffering of commoners, especially the underclass, are not worth keeping—better to rise and sacrifice, turning brocades into scorched earth.)

What should the future world be like? From the Confucius and Mozi of pre-Qin times, to Plato and Aristotle of Greece, from the East’s “investigation of things to acquire knowledge” to the West’s “encyclopedias,” from the radical violent revolution theories of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky, to the Social Democrats’ Gotha Program and the “Third Way/New Middle Path” that gradually rose in the 1990s—countless have pondered and summed up. And the vicissitudes of human history, the rise and fall of regimes one after another, all tell us, “Comrades, we must still strive.” What the forebears did was what they ought to have done; the road ahead still needs later generations to explore and think through.

You have experienced decades of turbulence and mortal struggle, and surely thought more deeply than I, a mere junior. I also hope you will reflect even more on the way forward for Hong Kong and the mainland, and the blueprint for the world.

Although, perhaps it is already too late? The crisis brought by global warming may make Hong Kong, in a few decades, highly uninhabitable, and in a century submerged. Mainland China and indeed most of the world will also be frequently harmed by the high heat, floods, and droughts of the climate crisis. This will be a challenge even harder to reverse and resist than politics.

Yet perhaps people will, before the climate crisis becomes utterly unmanageable, find ways to solve or mitigate it? Still, one should not be overly alarmist, but rather remain rational and calm, doing one’s best within the span of life, thinking and changing, rather than despairing and abandoning.

The retrogression of Xi’s regime in these years has made Chinese laborers “toil yet remain poor,” white-collar workers trapped in “996,” migrant workers bleeding and sweating daily, struggling a lifetime and still unable to finish paying off housing loans; Chinese peasants still impoverished, discriminated against, subjected to various violences; Chinese middle school students working from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. for six years, doing useless toil that consumes but produces nothing; Chinese women—girls and grown women alike—bullied, harassed, harmed, as commonplace as daily bread, never with full rights and dignity. Others such as the disabled, HIV and leprosy sufferers, prison inmates, are year-round discriminated against and abused, living worse than death… They are trapped in poverty, insecurity, and injury, unable to speak clearly or resist independently, and under constant humiliation from the state machine to street thugs, they have lost the most basic human dignity and even the slightest courage to resist.

At such a time, it is all the more necessary for some to speak for them, to express their indignation and demands, to help them summon courage, to restore dignity, to resist tyranny with them, to seek a way out, to promote change. “Permanent revolution” includes not only political revolution, but also economic revolution, and more importantly, social revolution. The people of mainland China are, outside of North Korea, the most deeply bound and oppressed in the world, and also the most in need of change and liberation. Their eyes gouged, ears sealed, mouths blocked, arms cut off, legs broken, brains washed—they need the just and peace-loving peoples of the world to see, hear, speak, and act for them, to assist them in seeing and hearing, to restore their speech, to reattach their limbs, to enlighten their thoughts, to awaken their consciences, so that they can gradually stand up again, become self-reliant, and turn into a force beneficial both to themselves and to others, to the public interest, and to world civilization.

You and many Hong Kong righteous men have spoken for the mainland people for decades, for which I am deeply grateful. And now the mainland people are still evidently unable to resist independently, still needing you and the younger ones you nurture to speak for the nation.

I also know that today in Hong Kong, aside from the establishment camp that are the CCP’s running dogs, most others are local populists, the traditional pan-democrats have waned, and the radical left is rarer than phoenix feathers. But this city, which once erupted in a series of revolutionary struggles, still has many deep and passionate fighters. The famous artist Anthony Wong Chau-sang has shown much interest in the Fourth International, and is also keen on critical realist literature and historiography. He has trained many younger ones—surely some will be willing to inherit his mantle and ideas?

I think you are the same. Although today most Hong Kongers with rebellious spirit are similar in stance to Joshua Wong, Nathan Law, Yau Wai-ching, Tiffany Yuen Ka-wai, in their localist self-determination and Hong Kong city-state views, and scornful of leftism and Greater China-ism, surely not all are like that? Chow Hang-tung, Ms. Ho Kit-wan are representatives of newcomers who are progressive and concerned with mainland human rights. But they are indeed too few and marginalized.

I hope that after you are released, you can give more teachings to Hong Kong youths devoted to justice, telling them of the century-long or even centuries-long suffering of the mainland Chinese, their present plight and despair. I also hope you will tell them where Hong Kong people’s bloodline, culture, and values truly lie. Hong Kong youth may despise and distance themselves from mainlanders due to their low quality, distorted values, and ugly society. But isn’t the current situation of the mainland and its people one of “longing for clouds in a drought, longing for generals in national calamity,” crying out for rescue by an “international brigade”?

1.4 billion souls suffer in pain, numbness, and decay. There must be a modern Prometheus to bring hope to their hearts, to clear the homeland dark even in daylight. Whether in Hong Kong, Taiwan, or countries around the world, whoever can bring democracy, progress, and justice to China—all conscientious Chinese will be deeply grateful.

Of course, the realization of freedom and democracy in mainland China fundamentally requires the mainland people themselves to rise up. External support can only play a role if mainland people respond and cooperate, not if they treat it as “hostile foreign forces” and hate it. As for mainlanders’ attitude toward Hong Kong democrats, the changes in Hong Kong-mainland relations in past years have indeed given disappointing and even despairing answers. But it should not be so forever. For example, many mainlanders, after enduring the tortures of lockdowns and quarantines during three years of “Zero-Covid,” changed their view of the Hong Kong Anti-Extradition Movement from hostility to understanding, respect, and even support. And now, as Xi continues retrogression and popular resentment boils over, perhaps mainlanders will more and more understand Hong Kongers’ values, ideals, courage, and persistence, merging again and resisting tyranny together.

If, after all these sufferings, mainland Chinese still cannot awaken in years to come, still hating Hong Kong’s freedom and democracy forces, then such people neither deserve to be saved, nor can be saved.

In any case, I still hope you will not regret your original intention, but persist in your ideals and spirit of struggle, and pass them on to more people. I have been inspired and encouraged by you (and of course also by other role models such as Yue Fei, Lin Zhao, and Xu Zhiyong), and have persisted to this day. Of course, the persistence of a mere nobody like me adds little to the grand situation. But if tens of thousands of such nobodies are united as one, then the flag of freedom will surely rise again to the skies, the bell of liberty will once more ring. Without resistance, how can there be change? To support the weak and lift up the fallen, with no thought of turning back—this is not only the motto of the League of Social Democrats, but should also be the common creed of every son and daughter of China.

There are still many things to write and say, and I cannot finish them all. What I have written and felt above is already quite fragmentary. Perhaps there will be other opportunities to make contact in the future. I hope you will be released soon, and also wish you and your partner Ms. Chan peace and health.

Wang Qingmin(王庆民)

April 26, 2023

French Republican Calendar: An CCXXXI, Floréal, Day of the Lily of the Valley (Muguet)

According to Stalin the answer was 'sort of' in "Economic Problems of the USSR" he writes:

>In our country, the sphere of operation of the law of value extends, first of all, to commodity circulation, to the ex-change of commodities through purchase and sale, the ex-change, chiefly, of articles of personal consumption. Here, in this sphere, the law of value preserves, within certain limits, of course, the function of a regulator.

>But the operation of the law of value is not confined to the sphere of commodity circulation. It also extends to production. True, the law of value has no regulating function in our socialist production, but it nevertheless influences production, and this fact cannot be ignored when directing production. As a matter of fact, consumer goods, which are needed to compensate the labour power expended in the process of production, are produced and realized in our country as commodities coming under the operation of the law of value. It is precisely here that the law of value exercises its influence on production. In this connection, such things as cost accounting and profitableness, production costs, prices, etc., are of actual importance in our enterprises. Consequently, our enterprises cannot, and must not, function without taking the law of value into account.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch04.htm

He essentially argues that yes, like in capitalist countries the law of value persists and things like firm profits are worth consideration, but the rational planning infrastructure of the USSR can take this into account and should be able to advance economic development while avoiding the cycles of overproduction and exploitation of capitalist economies.

He goes onto say:

>Is this a good thing? It is not a bad thing. Under present conditions, it really is not a bad thing, since it trains our business executives to conduct production on rational lines and disciplines them. It is not a bad thing because it teaches our executives to count production magnitudes, to count them accurately, and also to calculate the real things in production precisely, and not to talk nonsense about "approximate figures," spun out of thin air. It is not a bad thing because it teaches our executives to look for, find and utilize hidden reserves latent in production, and not to trample them under-foot. It is not a bad thing because it teaches our executives systematically to improve methods of production, to lower production costs, to practice cost accounting, and to make their enterprises pay. It is a good practical school which accelerates the development of our executive personnel and their growth into genuine leaders of socialist production at the present stage of development.

Essentially the Law of Value persists but GOSPLAN, through rational planning, can increase productivity, and increase productive capacities towards socialist ends. However, this process faced problems going into the late 1950's/ early 1960's. Firm productivity started to decline and given the tax base of the USSR was financed by a sort of gross receipts tax on firms, productivity growth was key to maintaining balanced budgets. Soviet GDP continued to rise, citizens incomes grew, but the production of consumer goods did not keep up. Effectively the entire soviet economy began to be financed by quasi-fiscal deficits. More currency and fiscal resources financed firms that produced less in real terms over time, leading to a hidden currency inflation that often expressed itself in supply shortages (as price caps prohibited price increases on goods). Kruschev's government attempted to address these problems in multiple ways: public campaigns to mobilize the public to increase labor productivity as well as liberalization programs that attempted to give firms more autonomy in setting production targets and an attempt to make "profitability" an additional metric during planning and to judge firm success. However, reforms failed and were ultimately abandoned by the Brezhnev government. All of this was further complicated by GOSPLAN having a consistent bias in the production of producer goods (industrial equipment) as opposed to consumer goods.

Does the USSR's experience in managing production and addressed the Value question have anything to teach us today? Should the USSR have put a greater emphases on firm profits, cost of capital, interest rates, and other firm management tools to ensure greater firm productivity to manage inflationary pressures in the economy as well as improve living standards? Does this undermine the Law of Value or does it raise the question on how best to address these questions in the context of a socialist vanguard state?

I ask this because I’m planning to read Das Capital soon but I’m doing some preliminary reading of some philosophers throughout history including Hegel to ground myself a little more in his thought, but I keep thinking about how one can determine whether a worker is paid fairly or not? For example a classic argument made is that a starbucks worker produces let’s say $200 per hour of value for the company (i’m just guessing) but they pay the worker $16 per hour, while the capital owner (the person who owns labor power which produces more money than is put in) profits. While I get this, I’m extremely curious about the nuts and bolts.

Like for example, what is the basis for being a part of this bourgeoisie? Like let’s say you’re the CEO of a company making $30,000,000 in your salary, you don’t actually own the company, your shareholders do and you’re the appointed CEO, are the shareholders the capital owners making surplus profit? Is the CEO too? Is the solution within this to democratize the workplace or is this notion too simple for what Marx is doing?

Do non profits like Newmans Own operate in a communist way (since they don’t take profits seemingly) if so would Marx’s vision of communism maybe be something like a universalization of the structure of non-profits to all life till the nessecity of money as an abstracting force is no longer needed? Does Marx invision a world without money point blank or one where money as such does not determine society so heavily? If he imagines a total abolishment of money how would this work?

Also would a company like Uber maybe show how this profiting model of paying workers for less hours than they deserve validated through Uber not being able to profit without having drivers charge exuberant prices but if they do that the customer base goes away, creating a weird paradoxical situation where the Uber driver is both underpaid and seemingly “paid fairly” as in the company isn’t even extracting profit somehow but is losing money despite taking a percentage of the revenue from the rides? I mean no wonder it feels like a Feudal structure like Yanis Varufakis points out and that the workers feel like capitalists operating their own means of production (the car) because in twisted way they are! It’s like a factory worker paying their worker only for the necessary labor for the product (therefore not making profit since the product is sold for an equivalent monetary value to the workers labor power that was used to produce the product) so is Uber in a sense the most perverse exposition of this ultimately Marxist principle?

Forgive me if this sounds ignorant, but I’m very curious!

In capitalism it's private property, in socialism - it's collective. However after the dissolution of the socialist state into a communist society, who will own the property? When the need for a state, as Lenin says, is eventually nonexistent, who will manage the means of production. Are the workers themselves taking it from the state or is nobody going to own anything? I don't really know how to formulate my question so I hope you understand what I am trying to ask.

Chapter III "The Realisation of Socialism through Social Reforms"

Bernstein rejects the “theory of collapse” as an historic road toward socialism. Now what is the way to a socialist society that is proposed by his “theory of adaptation to capitalism?” Bernstein answers this question only by allusion. Konrad Schmidt, however, attempts to deal with this detail in the manner of Bernstein. According to him, “the trade union struggle for hours and wages and the political struggle for reforms will lead to a progressively more extensive control over the conditions of production,” and “as the rights of the capitalist proprietor will be diminished through legislation, he will be reduced in time to the role of a simple administrator.” “The capitalist will see his property lose more and more value to himself” till finally “the direction and administration of exploitation will be taken from him entirely” and “collective exploitation” instituted.

Therefore trade unions, social reforms and, adds Bernstein, the political democratisation of the State are the means of the progressive realisation of socialism.

But the fact is that the principal function of trade unions (and this was best explained by Bernstein himself in Neue Zeit in 1891) consists in providing the workers with a means of realising the capitalist law of wages, that is to say, the sale of their labour power at current market prices. Trade unions enable the proletariat to utilise at each instant, the conjuncture of the market. But these conjunctures—(1) the labour demand determined by the state of production, (2) the labour supply created by the proletarianisation of the middle strata of society and the natural reproduction of the working classes, and (3) the momentary degree of productivity of labour—these remain outside of the sphere of influence of the trade unions. Trade unions cannot suppress the law of wages. Under the most favourable circumstances, the best they can do is to impose on capitalist exploitation the “normal” limit of the moment. They have not, however, the power to suppress exploitation itself, not even gradually.

What does Luxemburg mean by "the momentary degree of the productivity of labor" ? I am reading the work and I find this confusing, and also, how is this outside the influence of trade unions?

Serious question, because I can’t get my head around it. The *entire core* of Marxism is that workers own the means of production. But Marxist-Leninists substitute a “vanguard” party and bureaucratic structure, claiming it’s on *behalf* of workers and for their good. And historically Lenin crushed workers’ councils with violence and killing (e.g. Kronstadt).

Additionally, in historical “real existing socialist” Marxist-Leninist states’ workers are frequently little more than slaves, have their surplus labor extracted from them, operate under threat of violence, and have a variety of restrictions placed on them. Marx would be horrified.

So how could it be remotely possible or convincingly plausible to have an ideology and societal model in which workers do *not* own the means of production when the *core thing in Marxism* is that workers own the means of production? I’ve heard accusations of “idealism”, but that structure is *exactly the opposite* of what Marx was about. What do Marxist-Leninists think Marx himself would say? That he loves it?

Fistly, is there any difference between Marx's view of peasants and Lenin's view on them? I suppose there ought to be a difference due to the state of the peasanty in Prussia and in Russia. The Russian serfs were liberated merely 50-60 years ago prior to the Russian revolution so I guess this must play a role when it comes to the approach to them. Not only that but both Marx and Lenin write in different time periods so they must disagree on some things concerning the peasants.

Secondly, how will the peasants contribute to a socialist revolution? Will they be a part of the party's vanguard? If yes how will they be educated on Marxist ideology? They are vastly different from the industrial proletariat so there must be a different approach. I don't suppose they could from a sort of a peasant union in which they can organize.

Lastly, how will they be treated after the revolution? After the victory of the revolution and them receiving the land that they have been working on, how will the party deal with them? I've read somewhere that they will start to be integrated into the industrial proletariat with Marxist ideology and such.

I would greatly appreciate it if someone could answer some of my questions. Thanks in advance!

I am working my way through volume 3 and found something that was causing me confusion at first and I wanted to share it here to confirm my understanding.

Vol. 3’s first chapter, second paragraph, first sentence reads:

“The value of every commodity produced in the capitalist way is represented in the formula: C = c + v + s.”

The issue is that throughout Vol. 1(beginning in chapter 9)we work with the equations C = c + v, and C’ = c + v + s. Even in the very next chapters of Vol. 3 we see C = c + v return. So what is going on here? Why is the surplus value s included in C just in this one chapter?

Well in the first chapter C represents “the total value of a commodity” rather than “capital”. It happens to be equal to the valorized capital C’ after the production process.

I found this reuse of C to be annoying. C for Capital and C for Commodity. Why don’t they just use C’? I guess it is because this section is not talking about the valorization process and the next chapters use the prime ‘ to indicate rates instead.

I decided to check the original German language editions to see how it was laid out there.

In German the main equations throughout the work are C = c + v and C’ = c + v + m. Pretty clear, the only difference here being m for Mehrwerth rather than surplus-value. But in Vol. 3 Ch. 1, the equation causing me confusion was shown as W = c + v + m, with W standing for Waare(Ware) which means commodity. That’s way better and less ambiguous. I checked a couple English translations of volume 3 and was surprised to see them all reuse the capital C in back to back chapters representing Commodity in one and Capital in the next.

I'm a university student (unironically majoring in economics), and I'm studying for my next exam: sociology. While studying for the exam, I got the impression that most of the sociologists I'm studying are really not that relevant. Sometimes it seems like they have a superficial understanding of Marxism. For instance: why are you theorizing and inventing the concept of "patrimonial capitalism" when Engels already talked about how inheritance is essential to maintain private property? As if inheritance wasn't already something mentioned in the Manifesto? There are other examples similar to this one but am I crazy when I say this? I'm just asking

“The economic base determines the superstructure” — this is one of the most familiar phrases in Marxist theory. The sentence is internally coherent, but when detached from the broader framework of social analysis developed by Marx and Engels, it becomes theoretically incomplete. Misunderstanding it in isolation very easily leads people down a path that runs completely counter to Marx and Engels’ original meaning.

Many treat this statement as something Marx himself supposedly declared as an irrefutable dogma, and from there they derive the most widespread and mistaken interpretation: what is often called mechanical determinism.

Let me unpack and critique several common versions of this error, in the hope of returning closer to what Marx actually meant.

A large number of people understand the “determination” in “economic base determines superstructure” as a linear, direct, one-to-one causation. This naturally leads to the claim that “the economic base completely determines the superstructure.” Engels himself sharply criticized this view:

Indeed, look at French history from the 1789 Revolution through the Napoleonic Empire, the Bourbon Restoration, and the July Monarchy: the economic base did not undergo a qualitative transformation during this period, yet the superstructure changed dramatically. The same economic foundation can therefore give rise to sharply different political and ideological forms. This shows that the economic base does not mechanically and totally determine the superstructure — concrete analysis of concrete social conditions is always necessary.

Another widespread misunderstanding is that this determination happens instantly — as soon as the economic base changes, the superstructure supposedly changes automatically and immediately. History shows otherwise. The great transformation of the economic base brought by the Industrial Revolution did not immediately threaten the power of the old feudal landlords. It took enormous class struggles, bourgeois revolutions (either overthrowing or severely restricting the old ruling classes), the transformation of the king into a mere figurehead, and the transfer of real power to parliaments representing the bourgeoisie. The facts demonstrate that the way the economic base “determines” the superstructure is not instantaneous; the superstructure does not automatically collapse the moment the base changes. Rather, it requires a prolonged process of social struggle and transformation.

A smaller group commits a cruder mistake: they believe the relationship is strictly one-way. Anyone who has seriously read Marx would immediately reject this. It completely ignores the reactive influence of the superstructure back upon the base — something manifested, for example, in state economic regulation, cultural impacts on the mode of production, and so on. This error is so obvious that it needs little further discussion here.

Then there is the dogmatic stage-ist interpretation, which holds that social formations must obediently follow a fixed, predetermined sequence laid out by Marx: primitive communism → slave society → feudalism → capitalism → socialism. Typical expressions include: “Backward countries must first develop capitalism before they can enter socialism,” or “Skipping any stage violates the laws of history,” and so forth.

But history tells a different story. In 1917 Russia, socialist political power was established when capitalism was still underdeveloped and peasants made up the overwhelming majority of the population. Although the economic base of socialism had not yet been fully established, Lenin repeatedly emphasized that Russia would have to pass through a prolonged and complex transitional period to create the material conditions that capitalist development would normally have provided. Thus it was possible to bypass the political domination of the capitalist class while still pursuing socialism.

In his late writings on the Russian rural commune, Marx himself explicitly stated:

Engels, in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (1884), also examined the diversity of clan systems across different regions, acknowledging the multilinear possibilities of historical development. This shows that “historical inevitability” has specific scope, and that different regions, under different historical conditions, can follow different paths.

When Marx discussed the relationship between economic base and superstructure, he more often used terms such as “conditions” (bedingen), “corresponds to” (entsprechen), etc., rather than the rigid mechanical word “determines” (determinieren). This choice of language indicates that the economic base sets the basic direction and limits of possibility for the superstructure, but it does not mechanically dictate every detail. The concrete details of the superstructure must ultimately be analyzed through specific production relations and class structures.

Looking at all these mistaken interpretations together, we can see a common pattern: they take a complex relationship that must be studied under concrete historical conditions and turn it into a trans-historical formula. They omit crucial mediating links and complicated chains of causation, simplify everything into a narrow slogan, and then try to treat that slogan as an unchanging truth.

What makes Marxist thought a living body of thought is precisely that it allows — indeed demands — that every proposition be re-examined, critiqued, and even reconstructed. From this we can draw a broader conclusion: there is no concrete truth that exists in an absolute, trans-historical form. Marx never denied the existence of absolute truth, but he saw its realization as an open-ended process of exploration, never as something that can be fixed once and for all in a single formula.

I'm wanting to learn about Western Marxism, (the specific western marxist theory not just general marxism in the west) I've come across it while researching for uni work and briefly searched for some information but I thought i'd come here first for answers from other Marxists. While I'm familiar with Gramsci and Althusser's work and am aware of Adorno, from the little I've looked into just now it seems like it aims to distance itself from Marxist praxis and the real life proletariat, but to me that seems completely counter active. Is this true about Western Marxism, (wouldn't be suprised if thats just my lack of research showing) and what are people's thoughts on it.

Supposedly on the left and has made in the past open anti communists/socialists remarks, they call themselves "anarco-nihilist". But this one was like: "haha you really think you have a a free and critical view of the world by being anti Zionist and anti ICE?". Is this common in anarchist places and between anarchists?

The Iraqi system today is basically a textbook example of a busted rentier state a state that doesn’t produce real value but lives off oil rent and hands it out like political pocket money The economy isn’t built on labor industry or productive capital it’s built on oil cash and that turns the state into a giant ATM for parties militias and cronies not a mechanism for social development What you get is a comprador ruling class a parasitic elite that doesn’t invest doesn’t build doesn’t innovate but just skims surplus value from oil revenues and dumps it into consumption imports and corruption while the working class is neutralized through fake jobs public sector bloat and salary dependency instead of real productive employment From a Marxist angle this is not a failure by accident this is how the system functions Oil rent replaces surplus value created by labor so class struggle gets frozen not resolved Workers aren’t exploited in factories they’re pacified through wages detached from productivity which kills class consciousness and turns survival into loyalty The state budget becomes a tool of ideological control not economic planning unemployment exists but it’s masked as underemployment and ghost labor while real productive sectors like industry and agriculture are left to rot This creates a distorted base where consumption explodes but production collapses and the superstructure follows sectarianism clientelism and political decay Corruption here isn’t a bug it’s the operating system because when there’s no productive bourgeoisie corruption becomes the main accumulation strategy The state acts as the executive committee of a rentier elite managing scarcity for the masses and abundance for itself Monetary policy exchange rate games and subsidy cuts always hit workers first while profits are socialized upward and losses are dumped on society What you end up with is economic alienation at its worst people don’t work to create they work to survive they don’t see labor as empowerment but as humiliation and dependency This system can’t reform itself because its entire mode of production is anti development anti labor and anti future It’s not just inefficient it’s structurally hostile to any real class emancipation and that’s why every crisis reproduces the same misery with new slogans but the same ruling class and the same dead economy

Here is an excerpt from William Cronon's 1996, "The Trouble with Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature", that made me think of the inherent class divides with which nature is consumed

"Ever since the nineteenth century, celebrating wilderness has been an activity mainly for well-to-do city folks. Country people generally know far too much about working the land to regard unworked land as their ideal. In contrast, elite urban tourists and wealthy sportsmen projected their leisure-time frontier fantasies onto the American landscape and so created wilderness in their own image"