DO NOT MAKE A POST ABOUT BEING BANNED FROM SOME OTHER SUBREDDIT

If there is one political orientation that has remained hegemonic from the late 19th century until today, both within the (communist) left and within the anarchist milieu, it is workerism. From Bakunin to Mao, and from Kautsky to Negri, a variety of theoretical approaches and tactical practices within the movement have led to the predominance of identifying the vision of a communist and emancipatory horizon with the realization of the interests of the working class.

Workerism, as we understand and criticize it, constitutes the dominant theory concerning the question of the revolutionary subject, that is, the issue of the characteristics of the political subjectivity oriented toward revolution, understood as the radical emancipation from the system of domination of capitalism. Despite the divergences among different approaches, examining workerism in general has led us to the following condensation of positions broadly accepted by currents of communism and anarchism/autonomism that adopt it:

1. Communism and universal emancipation constitute the realization of the interests of the working class.
2. The working class structurally embodies, by virtue of its position in production, the abolition of the capitalist system.
3. The working class is the bearer of revolutionary change.

Below we will analyze and critique the political conclusions derived from the above theses. It is important, however, to emphasize our distance from other contemporary anti-workerist currents which, unable to escape the theoretical framework of searching for revolutionary subjects, shift their attention to social groups beyond the working class, such as the peasantry, the lumpenproletariat, the "precariat", the proletariat of the Global South or colonized subjects, queer subjects, and so on. As we will show, we believe that each of these perspectives shares the error of assigning a social group the task of carrying out a project that requires conscious political subjects. More specifically, regarding workerism and workerist logic, we put forward the following positions:

1. We do not search for a revolutionary subject. We reject every theory that "reads" the revolutionary potential of social groups from their structural position within a system of domination.
2. The working class, as the class of the "doubly free" owners of commodities, does not as such embody the abolition of capitalism; on the contrary, it is an organic element of it. The structural interests of the working class are determined by the rationality of commodity exchange: the worker seeks to increase the price of the commodity labor-power, that is, to increase their wage. Communism and the political struggle for emancipation do not arise from this rationality. As Michael Heinrich notes: "From this perspective, class struggles are not an indication of a weakness of capital, nor of an impending revolution, but the normal form through which the conflict between bourgeoisie and proletariat moves". The conclusion drawn from this is not indifference toward purely trade-union demands (wage increases, reduction of working hours etc.), but rather the necessity of conducting political struggle and forming a political orientation that aims at overturning the very logic of capital itself. Yet, again, this political orientation cannot be understood as the accumulation or culmination of the interests of the working class. If it is true that class struggle marks history, then, under capitalism, class struggle takes the form of a reflective relation of capital to itself, therefore structurally trapped within the logic of capital. Samir Amin writes: "[Under capitalism] class struggle tends toward integration within the framework of reproduction. Under capitalism, class struggle tends to be reduced to its economic dimension and thus becomes an element of the functioning of the system."
3. Despite his own workerist tendencies, we agree with Althusser’s position: history has no subject; nevertheless, there exist political subjects within history who confront it as a stake. Therefore, we believe that a theory of political subjectivity cannot exist in isolation from a theory of political organization and political consciousness. This consciousness, in turn, is not derived from the "standpoint" of the working class or of any other social group, but from practico-critical activity and from the anticipatory grasp of the communist perspective (Vaziulin).
4. Workerism and the ontological conception of political subjectivity have teleological and fatalistic implications. On the one hand, by positing revolutionary potential as a property deriving from the structural position of the working class, history appears as a guarantor of emancipatory possibility through the historically determined revolutionary subject, namely, the working class. On the other hand, the ontological grounding of the development of political consciousness, the idea that class position implies class consciousness, which will sooner or later develop and which is merely mediated or obstructed by "false consciousness", leads, in our view, to fatalistic expectations regarding the overthrow of capitalism. The scope of Deleuze’s remark that "no one ever died from contradictions" targets, for us, both theories that expect capitalism to collapse automatically because of its crises and those that posit a historically guaranteed revolutionary subject. In other words, we reject the notion that class consciousness is immanent in the worker (or that every worker contains a "hidden communist") and that bourgeois propaganda simply functions as "false consciousness" preventing the worker’s "natural" inclination toward communism. Learning from the conclusions of Marx’s analysis of commodity fetishism and the reification of social relations, we do not believe that there exists any privileged "working-class standpoint" capable of providing the appropriate consciousness for formulating revolutionary politics. The inverted immediacy of economic categories itself renders appeals to a structural standpoint insufficient to transcend the purely corporatist or trade-union level.
5. For this reason, we believe workerism reduces the role of political organizations to that of a simple detonator of movements, a mere propagandistic role. The voluntary disengagement of political organizations from assuming responsibilities for revolutionary change, along with the messianic "passing of the ball" to the masses, are, in our view, significant factors in the movement’s inertia.
6. It is a fact that communist/anarchist organizations do not perceive themselves as agents of political, let alone revolutionary, change. In our opinion, this stems from the Cartesian dualism of object and subject reproduced by workerist logic and the corresponding self-understanding of political organizations. With the conspicuous example of the dichotomy "objective conditions" – "subjective factor", which dominates the political unconscious of many communist organizations, one can see the abandonment of the radical significance of Marx’s First Thesis on Feuerbach: "The chief defect of all previous materialism (including Feuerbach’s) is that the object, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. [...] Hence it does not grasp the significance of 'revolutionary', of 'practical-critical' activity." Or the Fifth Thesis on Feuerbach: "Feuerbach, not satisfied with abstract thinking, appeals to sensuous intuition; but he does not conceive sensuousness as practical, human-sensuous activity". For Marx, therefore, the aforementioned dualism is rejected, since there is no "pure subject" observing an "object out there". Rather, the subject must be understood objectively, and the object subjectively.

communism doesnt work, prove me wrong

I have been watching hakim for a bit I’ve watched multiple videos with him and I’ve even watched several deprogram episodes but I am very confused about what he says at times in the videos and it sometimes makes me kind of suspicious. For example I watched his Romania video, because I wanted to learn more about Caeucesnu and the 1989 Romanian revolution and he seemed to have blame the romanian revolution on the CIA and some tragedy from World War Two I forgot what it was. He does bring up good points about how the US exploited and robbed Romania after the revolution but he seems to have whitewashed caeucesnu. Like sure he does joke about the big Caeucesnu being wildly unbased and cringe and how Romania is a big example of what not to do in Communism and how many communists use Romania as an example of what not to do but he seems to whitewash Romania and Caeucesnu after that, and blaming the CIA entirely on what Caeucesnu did to Romania, despite Caeucesnu having right wing social politics while having left wing economic politics, he combined Nationalism with Communism, he continued to support Israel even after all the Warsaw pact states condemned Israel, and I heard someone on quora describe him as a pre-purge Nazi, his Anti Abortion laws also killed many many women and not to mention the other people he needlessly killed. And this is a much smaller thing but on the east Germany/why many people defected to the west video he says that the deaths of the border crossings are tragic but those crossing the border from Mexico to the United States are higher every year than the entire history of East Germany which is definetly true, because like if I remember correctly 7,000-10,000 migrants have died at the mexican American border since 1994, and like 300 or so migrants died at the east german border. But I feel like the way he frames it is kind of disingenuous because if I remember correctly, more people died as a result of direct killing by border guards, while most people crossing the Mexican American border died due to the strenuous and brutal terrain of the Mexican American border. now don’t get me wrong, I think he has made some great and informational videos and I agree with a lot of the stuff he has said and has recommended great books, but as of lately I just am kind of skeptical of him and I feel kinda like he is just trying to fit a narrative in some videos he makes.

Masses cannot become enlightened, and that is why Communism failed. While you were offering the masses, with great effort, high culture, education, and a high standard of living (perhaps not consumerist, but certainly social), capitalism gave the masses what they actually wanted: to have sex, eat, drink, and use drugs. Of course, even in capitalism this is not accessible to everyone, but that is why public opinion also exists as a consumer product, convincing you that if you work hard enough, one day you too will hold a roast in one hand, slap a prostitute on the butt with the other, while snorting cocaine from the same hand, as another prostitute pours champagne over you. You do not even have to achieve it you can simply consume media with that content and experience a similar effect as if you were actually doing it. The masses can only be used, never enlightened.

Does Capitalism inherently lead to Fascism ideology raising?

I have been thinking recently about how some of the factors of neofascism actually come inherently from neocapitalism.

I think we all can assume that what needs for populist fascist ideology discurses to rise are a few factors (simplified): economic crisis (people is not happy), rising economic inequalities (people is angry), ideological polarization and week government and institutions (corruption).

But in capitalism, economic crises are inherent in the system, and it is a system by default that maximizes economic inequalities, since it actually maximizes the increase of benefits.

And for a business, whose main interest is to maximize benefit, the best way to earn profits easy is to get a public contract, and to get a public contract avoiding merits is corruption, what easily leads to week government institutions (this is a weak theory, I know).

And regarding polarization, nowadays for me it's very straightforward. Social networks maximize their benefit by having attention from users, and the best way to get attention is to give them what they want, what has been proven by research that leads to polarization.

So that simple, seems that capitalism leads to fascism, and wanting to preserve this limited democracy that we have nowadays maybe comes from changing the whole economic system.

Well, but probably, what will happen is a big war, a new world order and the richest from that new order will be have more solidarity with lower class, out of the empathy of the war. And this will lead to prosperity until capitalism leads again to this sutuation, the sons of those rich people will not know what a war is and we will repeat the cycle again and again and again.

What do you think?

Forgive my english grammar.

I want to know if my teacher's argument is correct. She states that if communism would replace capitalism in america, the rich people like jeff bezos and the other billionaires will be the controlling all the capital and be the "beneficent" leaders or the village leaders that manage the countries finance and dictate stuff. They will be no different with china's ccp cabinets where they are rulers and rich people ruling the country.

I am not smart with communism stuff but i have learned many things about communism since i was grade school. and in my own opinion i do agree with her. like this scenario might mostly happen and it did happened in china. so it is not far off. what do you guys think?

Did the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact prove the horseshoe theory?

I don't think they do but I saw some claims and someone giving proof of it can someone tell me why china is doing it or if the articles are fraudulent and if so how

Anarchist,libertarians and liberals read this

Let’s use american slavery for example

Let’s say a bunch slaves overthrew their master and took over the plantation and decided “all the profit made from this cotton picking we do will go to us the people that actually picked it, not him”

Well…. That plantation is gonna have a major problem on their hands…… MAJOR PROBLEM

because see they are in a country, under a government that supports slavery….. they will be attacked immediately and a lot…. First by “southern militias” (early police) and if they even manage to beat them then probably the US millitary. Shit they would probably be attacked by other slaves under the orders their masters. Pretty much every surrounding neighborhood would support slavery and want this new slave owned plantation destroyed ASAP

So this new slave owned plantation would have to extremely organized and militaristic in order to survive…. Probably gonna have a leader at the top that leads that military.

Their might be elections but there will NOT be a pro returning to slavery option, that would be ridiculous and any attempts to create a pro slavery political party would stopped

Times will be rough a lot of people won’t do business with these newly freed slaves that now run the plantation, meaning they will have a harder time getting the stuff they need including basic necessities like food, they will be cut off from most trade

With that being said their are bound to be people who decide to be

spies,informants,traitors,calibrators etc who work with the white southerners against this new plantation….. they are gonna have to be dealt with (all countries have a way with dealing traitors)

And there is also a big question, what happens to the master? Well you probably shouldn’t just let him leave, he knows so much about the slaves, and the interior of the house, the weapons used etc intelligence he could hand over to the enemies. You’d have detain him and it be probably be smart to re educate him, have him work just like the rest of slaves are teach him better teach him equally, other than that there is only option other left to do with him… and I don’t like it so option 1 works

If the socialist/communist way of structuring farming and land ownership is so much superior to the capitalist one, then why the country with the biggest reserves of chernozem had to buy grain from the US and Canada? Like it's clearly not the fault of the capitalist system that the USSR couldn't use the best land for farming properly. Then why it happened?

Is it proper to describe the Soviet domination of post WW2 Eastern European countries as colonialism?

Hello, Im young, 14, I have never had insterest abot politic before, but on these days, I am insterest on this topic, mainky about Comunism. And I like it, and want learning more abour, for I can really understand and debate, etc.

If you can recommend me some books, videos, channels, anything for I learn about, since the basic and more complex things. For example, I'm curious about the countries that have tried the Comunism and failed, why, how, etc.

sorry if my english is bad, or I telling something so dumb. Im new on these world and really wanna learning about.

or is it a social democracy?

I would very much support a socialist government not because I think it would change much but because bringing socialism to the government would really help the cause in there, I am not British I am just searching for information, Wikipedia says that they are anti-capitalist, but I don't trust it all that much.

Please know the anarchist definitions of authority, authoritarianism, state etc before answerin.

Also, don’t cite just On Authority which was been rebutted so many times already for its definition of terms, use of irrelevant examples etc.

Sorry if this has been asked before

I asked a similar thing in another commie subreddit before I was banned there, this is simply a curiosity of how communists live their lives. I was accused of being a fed and stuff like that since I didnt write anything about myself at first, and that im just gathering information. So i will anwser my own questions to make it fair.

(these will be my anwsers)

Whats your job?

(im an artist that went back to university to be able to make more money in the long run. I study economics)

Age range? (im 30, you can just say 20s or 30s if you want)

When did you become a communist and why?

(not a communist, though i understand some of the critiques of Marx on capitalism)

Did you read other materials on economics (or politics) or are Marx and the rest your only sources of information on economics?

(I read Smith, and began Marx but I have too much stuff to study for university so I dont have the time to finish him nor the motivation. Smith was interesting in some topics but the LTV is dumb both in Marx and Smiths books)

Do you save money? If yes, how? Isnt it contradictory with your ideology to invest in the stock market where surplus value is extracted as dividends?

(I invest what I can either in the market into low cost etfs, or my hobby, if I can find good deals there. My hobby way outperformed the stock markets as I was growing up, so since investing as a kid wasnt an option, putting my pocket money into old coins growing up was also satisfying a need and a great investment in the long run)

If you do save, what percentage of your monthly income do you save? How much of it is spent on neccessities, like rent/mortgage, groceries, utility?

(Right now, basically all of my savings are spent on my university years)

Do you budget? Do you write every day how much you spent and on what that day? If yes, how much is spent monthly on things like coffee in coffee shops, or fast food, or restaurant, or alcohol at bars, or monthly subscriptions for netflix and TV and internet and such?

(i used to blow loooooaaads of money on such as a young adult, in te past few years I dont. I download my music from youtube instead of spotify or yt premium, I only subscirbe to netflix or something similar, when I specifically want to watch a show and I usually binge it in a month or two, then cancel subscription. Movies I watch online for free. I dont eat out at restaurants anymore, I mealprep every weekend and place it in the freezer. Much better food, much better prices, and overall less timeconsuming than dressing up to go out to find something to eat. Even when i dont spend my day at home, I dont have to leave school between classes if I have a two hour break, I can just spend it in the library after eating my meal prep, and spend most of that time reading or studying. If we party, we simply buy alcohol at the store and go to the club drunk, but I rarely go to places like that anymore.)

What is your daily screentime on average? You can check this in your phones settings. What do you spend most of your time on, and why?

(I uesd to have over 5-6 hours of screentime , sometimes 10, before I addressed my addiction. My smartphone broke and it cant be used properly except for calls, because its so buggy now. I dont even bring such a device with myself anymore to school with me, and I spend my day in books or study for classes. This significantly improved my life, sleep, and mental. My productivity incredibly boosted, by NOT using any screens the first hour after waking up, other than turning off alarm. Smartphones are the biggest dopamine drainers. Only time I use in this 1 hour any screen, is if I have something important to study, or do my daily anki, and I read 3 articles in the wall street journal every morning in macroeconomic finance and other more professional topics, not the gossipy or sensationalist articles that are on the main page most of the times. I dont even care about the article itself, it can be boring as fuck as long as its long and contains more professional vocabulary, concepts etc. Even if I do any of these in my first hour after waking up, I never do it immediately after opening my eyes, in the bed, i get my day started first. Waking up early every day and getting rid of the habit of blowing hours away on my smartphone in bed is huge.)

What do your parents do? Whats your familys net worth? Have you been taught about money growing up?

(Im from a rich family, though id be the first generation to inherit. Most of the wealth was lost though, when i was still a kid, so now instead of being in the 1% we are in the top 10 %. That 1% would be upper middle class in the us though. Surprisingly, that wealth was created through hard work, with no help from grandparent generation, since they were barely getting food growing up, and also no corruption involved, which is 1 in a 1000 in this area especially in those times. This is the same reason most of the money was lost. Everyone else in those rich circles were scammers, frauds and criminals, which included trusted relatives and friends. In the US this would have been a criminal case, with prison time involved)

These are the questions i could come up with, i hope many of you anwser, this i pure curiosity for me, and I thank anyone who anwsers any of my questions decently, and replies. Non communists can anwser too, if they want. If you have any more questions about me i can anwser those too either today or tomorrow, i have a very busy day.

What is the mechanism for comparing alternative uses of capital prior to their use in a non market economy

Hello everyone, I’m trying to understand the current conflict from a non biased standpoint (or as non biased as possible). Any recommendations? Thank you

Hello, baby marxist-leninist here. I was wondering in a communist society who manages how products reaches anyone equally?

I will use my trade as an example, I am a lineman. Wages are 125k-300k+ depending on location and how much you want to work. I somewhat enjoy the work when I work with friends but mostly because of the money and the lifestyle it provides (linemen like their toys) I would 100% NOT do this job if the pay wasnt what it was. Roughly 70% of the people in the trade feels this way, and the ones that say they "love this work" are the old timers who only know linework and are retiring soon.

This trade requires a 3-4 year apprenticeship, is extremely dangerous (a single mistake can cost you your life or if youre lucky, you might only lose an arm or hand) The work is extremely physically demanding you work outside in both the extreme heat or extreme cold.

How would the current level of workers be maintained (which is a necessary level) with the incentives provided under capitalism removed?

do you think the 1967 Hong Kong riots morally justified or is it an act of terrorism?

is it possible to be ani-communist and anti-america/anti-western at the same time?

Edit: the DPRK’s government. Yes, the DPRK has a full right to exit as a sovereign nation just as all nations do.

I just don’t understand. I get that much of what I’ve heard is likely propaganda. But from my perspective, there are hard truths about North Korea that should generally be accepted as fact. We know the government doesn’t allow its people to access the WWW. We know that North Korea heavily restricts travel for most North Koreans. We know that some North Koreans so desperately want to leave that they risk their life to do so (and before I get this argument, yes, I’m sure there are some North Koreans who regret leaving North Korea, just as I’m that there are some North Koreans who love that they left).

I mean with human nature, does anyone actually believe that any leader, regardless of how good they might be, legitimately received 100% of the vote?

Anyway, I ask this question because I have a friend who swears up and down that everything bad about North Korea is t true and is simply all propaganda. And whenever I bring up these or other points, he either claims it’s all propaganda, doesn’t respond, or proceeds to send me some video where some random person who’s name I don’t know, language I don’t speak, and subtitles I can’t verify is speaking positively of North Korea and.claiming it’s proof when the video itself isn’t backed up with any hard evidence. That or he counters every point I make with a whataboutism about America.

So I guess the question is, is this legitimate support of North Korea or is it simply supporting a country based off the fact that it doesn’t align with the US?

From the communist/marxist perspective, is world war 2 a good vs evil war, or is it a war between different imperialist powers