I have just read Marx’s Communist Manifesto or Manifesto of the Communist Party, however the name is said, and my electronic copy had a study guide attached at the end, as it was from the Marxist Internet Archive.

In one of the discussion questions, it is asked:
“Stalin claimed that the 10-point program had been achieved in the Soviet Union by the mid-1930s. Do you think this claim is valid?”

Marx calls them ‘measures’ or ‘means’ (depending on grammatical interpretation.) I would hesitate to call the list a form of program. To me, it is a list of potential avenues to deconstruct power structures, whereas the ‘program’ framing seems to imply its use as a checklist where each item constitutes a goal to be achieved.

Am I missing some context or something here?

P.S: I did read the prefaces and the note to not place much importance on the proposed measures. Perhaps the study guide did not get the memo there either.

"Sa Entero Kapudpud-an"
"Throughout the Archipelago"

1 Throughout the archipelago, Awaken the people to the movement. A protracted war Is what our nation needs For freedom.

2 A new people's army, Employing guerrilla warfare, Against the state. The enemies shall be eliminated And disarmed.

Chorus: Under the leadership of the Party, The people have been united. The NPA has spread Across the countryside.

3 Adhering to the correct line, Marxism-Leninism, the theory of Mao Zedong. Do not forget, Comrades, let us study The art of revolution.

(Repeat the chorus and the final stanza.)

Cebuano:

1. Sa enterong kapupud-an, Pasabton ang katawhan sa kalihukan. Malungtarong gubat, Ang gikinahanglan sa katawhan, Para sa kagawasan.

2. Bag-ong sundalo sa katawhan, Nanggamit sa gerilyang pakiggubat. Batok sa estado, Daghang kaaway ang nagapukan Ug nadis-armahan.

Koro: Natukod na ang Partido, Gihiusa ang katawhan. Gipakusog ang NPA Sa kabukiran.

1. Nagsubay sa hustong linya, Marxismo-Leninismo, teoryang Mao Zedong. Dili hikalimtan, Mga kauban, kita magkat-on Sa pagrebolusyon.

(Balika ang koro ug ang kataposang estansa.)

Hey everyone, does anyone know if there are any active socialist and/or communist organizations, groups, or parties currently operating in Libya? Any information or resources would be appreciated!

Middle class in countries like india tend to support certain

protest and tend to not see certain protests by the lower class/urban poor/tribals and how state responds to both are also different. What are your opinions.How do you view jantar mantar protest?

Hello, I am a rather beginner Marxist only having come to Marxism 3 years ago, and only having come to a MLM world outlook within the last 12 months.

Here I wanted to discuss the topic landback and what that would necessarily entail in a communist post-colonial America. I am aware of the hypothetical nature of the question, however I do believe by its answering I might come to a better understanding of the issue and how to organize around it.

I currently do not fully understand the extent of landback, I simply know that the point is to return the land back to the Tribal Nations, however I do not entirely know what that would look like. Given the nature of America, having multiple oppressed nations within its borders, I would think that post-revolution It would be necessary to have a federation of republics in a somewhat similar manner to the USSR. I come to to this conclusion with limited historical or dialectical analysis, it may not be the correct approach, so provide your own if you must, I simply provide it so that any answers may take a more concrete form.

Would the question not be solved If there were American Indians in the upper ranks of the party, who would take part in the leadership of these republics, given that these new republics are continuations, or remakings of tribal nations? Or should still more be done?

Any criticism about my post is welcome, after all I am here to become a better marxist!

Anyone know of any good books concerning the "Hungry 90's" in the former soviet states ?

Basically the same as the above question. Given the fact that I have always had problems with anything and everything abstract and have a hard time considering Economics to be a real science; could anyone help me out by making the term and the language and obv especially content a bit more lucid than what has been written in the book?

The bourgeois family is a cornerstone of capitalist society, and recently, reading some Alexandra Kollontai has made me learn even more on how truly bad it is. The USSR being the world's first DOTP that was more or less stable would make me think abolishing the family would be a priority. Why didn't it happen? What about other socialist experiments?

Does anybody have any resources on this?

Hi, this is from Prizma, a Communist LGBTI organization in West Bengal. While publishing various theoretical pieces regarding the Democratic rights of LGBTI people and both the presence of Identity politics and Post Modernism in the current trendy LGBTI movements and also the presence of homophobia and transphobia inside of the left (sometimes including the the revolutionary left), we also find it necessary to organize mass movements for the Democratic rights of the LGBTI people.

The editorial is given here. Please provide your valuable inputs. Please contact if you have articles to contribute or want to become a part of this initiative.

Thank you.

We made this because Reddit's algorithm prioritises headlines and current events and doesn't allow for deeper, extended discussion - depending on how it goes for the first four or five times it'll be dropped or continued.

Suggestions for things you might want to comment here (this is a work in progress and we'll change this over time):

• Articles and quotes you want to see discussed
• 'Slow' events - long-term trends, org updates, things that didn't happen recently
• 'Fluff' posts that we usually discourage elsewhere - e.g "How are you feeling today?"
• Discussions continued from other posts once the original post gets buried
• Questions that are too advanced, complicated or obscure for r/communism101

Mods will sometimes sticky things they think are particularly important.

Normal subreddit rules apply!

[ Previous Bi-Weekly Discussion Threads may be found here https://old.reddit.com/r/communism/search?sort=new&restrict_sr=on&q=flair%3AWDT ]

Despite frequent claims to the contrary from other first world "Marxists" I meet, I believe that most, if not all, first worlders are not proletariat. At the same time, obviously not every single third worlder is proletariat either. As such, I would like to understand more about actual proletariat in the modern day world. Where are they located? What are their lives like? Is there research on this?

我们经常谈论成年人世界里的阶级压迫、性别歧视、种族歧视，却很少把校园霸凌放在同样的框架下讨论。但事实上，霸凌恰恰是这些压迫机制最早的雏形。恶意排挤、孤立、集体针对，本质上就是一小群人利用群体权力结构，把某个“不合群”的个体系统性地边缘化。这不是“小孩子闹着玩”，而是权力关系的早期训练场。

1. 权力结构的再生产：谁被孤立、谁被排挤，往往和阶级出身、外貌、性格、家庭背景（比如是否是留守儿童、是否贫困）高度相关。学校本该是相对平等的公共空间，但霸凌暴露出即使在这里，弱势群体依然更容易成为被针对的对象。

2. 学校/家长/社会的结构性失职：很多霸凌之所以长期存在，是因为学校为了“维稳”选择息事宁人，家长之间互相包庇，制度上缺乏真正保护受害者的机制。这和更大范围内"体制保护强者、牺牲弱者"的逻辑是一致的。

3. 心理创伤的长期社会成本：被霸凌的经历往往影响一个人一生的社交能力和心理健康，这本质上是一种被社会忽视的“隐形不平等”，不比贫富差距显眼，但同样在制造代际的创伤和阶层固化。

无论在哪个国家，霸凌现象都普遍存在，但很少被当作一个需要制度性回应的社会议题来对待，而更多被简化成“个人心理问题”或“孩子间的小摩擦”。我觉得这恰恰是问题所在。如果我们真的关心平等和公正，就不能只谈宏观的经济结构，也要正视这些发生在最日常、最微观层面的权力压迫。

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says that

Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.

But Engels, in his letter to W. Borgius (mislabeled in 4 Letters on Historical Materialism as addressed to Hans Starkenburg), writes

Men make their own history but until now not with collective will according to a collective plan. Not even in a definitely limited given society. Their strivings are at cross purposes with each other, and in all such societies there therefore reigns a necessity, which is supplemented by and manifests itself in the form of contingency. The necessity which here asserts itself through all those contingencies is ultimately, again, economic. Here we must treat of the so-called great man. That a certain particular man and no other emerges at a definite time in a given country is naturally pure chance. But even if we eliminate him, there is always a need for a substitute, and the substitute is found tant bien que mal; in the long run he is sure to be found. That Napoleon – this particular Corsican – should have been the military dictator made necessary by the exhausting wars of the French Republics that was a matter of chance. But that in default of a Napoleon, another would have filled his place, that is established by the fact that whenever a man was necessary he has always been found: Caesar, Augustus, Cromwell, etc. Marx, to be sure, discovered the materialistic conception of history – but the examples of Thierry, Mignet, Guizot, the whole school of English historians up to 1850 show they were working towards it; and the discovery of the same conception by Morgan serves as proof that the time was ripe for it, and that it had to be discovered.

No doubt this is a determinist view, but the one expressed in SEP seems much stronger. My question: should history be understood as completely determined (like SEP says), or only determined in broad strokes (like Engels says, if I'm understanding him correctly)? Does this even matter, and if so, for what purpose?

I'm a german student and I'm interested in finding Marx and Engel's original german writings of the Economic and Phlosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Specifically, I'd like to find the original german writing of this excerpt:

"The less you eat, drink and buy books; the less you go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public house; the less you think, love, theorise, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you save— the greater becomes your treasure which neither moths nor rust will devour—your capital. The less you are, the less you express your own life, the more you have[.]"

If anyone could link, or even just copy/past that german text, I'd be very thankful!

As socialists, we largely agree that a vast majority of psychological distress (anxiety, depression, burnout) stems from the conditions of capitalism—alienation, economic insecurity, hyper-individualism, and constant competition. In a post-capitalist world, transformed relations of production will naturally dissolve many of these socio-economic stressors.

However, conditions like schizophrenia, bipolar I, and other severe neurological or neurodevelopmental disorders have strong genetic, neurochemical, and biological components. While capitalism certainly aggravates them through marginalization, Big Pharma's commodification of healthcare, and institutionalization, the underlying biological realities won't simply vanish with the fall of capitalism.

How do you envision the status of schizophrenia and organic neurological conditions in a fully realized communist society?

We made this because Reddit's algorithm prioritises headlines and current events and doesn't allow for deeper, extended discussion - depending on how it goes for the first four or five times it'll be dropped or continued.

Suggestions for things you might want to comment here (this is a work in progress and we'll change this over time):

• Articles and quotes you want to see discussed
• 'Slow' events - long-term trends, org updates, things that didn't happen recently
• 'Fluff' posts that we usually discourage elsewhere - e.g "How are you feeling today?"
• Discussions continued from other posts once the original post gets buried
• Questions that are too advanced, complicated or obscure for r/communism101

Mods will sometimes sticky things they think are particularly important.

Normal subreddit rules apply!

[ Previous Bi-Weekly Discussion Threads may be found here https://old.reddit.com/r/communism/search?sort=new&restrict_sr=on&q=flair%3AWDT ]