The title is self explanatory.

Multinational industries that operate across the world are there because of Capitalism, so how would a communist revolution in one country work with that?

Often these multinational corporations exploit the people in the foreign countries they're in, too. Would socialists of one country make exploitation stop in the other countries as well, or only stop to the point that it concerns the country the revolution took place in?

Also, in the case of a global revolution, would it be possible for everyone in the world to live like an average American? As in, a suburban house and a car? Personally I don't think we should because of how destructive suburbanization is to the environment, but would it be possible to by redistributing resources?

What were the democratic systems like? Did it mirror the worker councils in the USSR or were they different?

I’m a communist and I’ve recently been given the opportunity to travel to Guatemala to work with disadvantaged communities. Initially I thought this was a good way to actually take action and help people, but I’ve heard some mixed opinions. I know that charity is bad because the work it does should be done by the state, but what are we meant to do in the meantime? Regardless of whether it’s my responsibility or not, these people are still suffering, and this is the best option I can see of helping them.

Is this wrong? Is there a better way to help them? What are communist attitudes towards this?

"Communism is a moneyless, stateless, & classless envisioning of society," which, relative to our current society, would be an extremely radical change. This challenge especially applied to the start of the newly created Soviet Union, considering most people in Russia during Lenin's time were impoverished farmers who had just fought two bloody wars (Russian Civil War and WW1). Lenin realized this and tried a pragmatic approach to implementing such a society, called the "New Economic Policy," (which was basically a type of market socialism) that was supposed to be a temporary measure to help ease the transition towards the communist ideal. When Lenin died, Joesph Stalin would roll back (or enhance?) these reforms with collectivization.

I remember something similar being outlined in the "Critique of the Gotha Program" (written by Marx but published by Engels after his death), but I have seen many people disagree with this opinion as they believe allowing capitalism in any form will allow the bourgeoisie to take back power or that in order for communism to truly take place, there needs to be immediate action without compromise that completely dismantles the old system. So, is socialism a necessary part of transitioning to a truly communist society, or does it prevent it from truly being instated? Can the transition truly be immediate, or will it take multiple generations to accomplish?

I’m a communist but I’m not sure whether it’s worth joining a party or not. All the parties in my country are divided and unorganised. I have to pay membership fees but they don’t go towards anything important or worthwhile. They don’t do anything noteworthy and their plan if action is just to wait until they’re the largest party before they change anything. All of the other parties are even smaller and less organised. I think I could make better use of that money by helping people, but apparently joining a party is important, even if you’re in an established capitalist state. What is the point of joining a redundant party?

I’m having difficulty reconciling the labour theory of value with the reality of prices. When technological development improves the instruments of production, Das Kapital seems to claim that the value of commodities will decrease, due to less SNLT being required to produce them. However, this does not seem to be the case, with inflation being positive almost every year, demonstrating an increase in prices.

To me, it would appear that technological development is lowering the value of commodities, but not the prices, and capitalists derive profits by pocketing the difference. This would allow for further expansion of capital without having to derive it from workers surplus-value.

Is this accurate? That capital can be developed by an increase in the capitalist’s money, without a corresponding increase in their stored value. After all, we use money to trade non-commodities constantly- such as real estate. Often money ≠ value, as we know, and it looks to me as if capital derives from the difference between the two.

By supposed to give info about a certain topic, I mean subreddits like r/AskEconomics, r/AskHistorians and etc.

If the answer is yes then what can I/we do to find suitable alternatives ?

This is something upheld by both Stalin and Mao. Did Lenin ever write on it?

I'm having trouble understanding chapter 6, section 2 of Volume 2 of Capital. To start off, Marx says the following:

The costs of circulation which we shall consider now are of a different nature. They may arise from processes of production which are only continued in circulation, the productive character of which is hence merely concealed by the circulation form. On the other hand they may be, from the standpoint of society, mere costs, unproductive expenditure of living or materialised labour, but for that very reason they become productive of value for the individual capitalist, may constitute an addition to the selling price of his commodities.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch06.htm#2

However, in the previous chapter, we saw:

Time of circulation and time of production mutually exclude each other. During its time of circulation capital does not perform the functions of productive capital and therefore produces neither commodities nor surplus-value.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch05.htm

These two passages seem to me to be in conflict with one another, and I'm not sure where I'm going wrong. If time of circulation and time of production mutually exclude one another, how is it that processes of production can continue in circulation? If capital in its time of circulation produces no commodities or surplus-value, how can the circulation costs discussed in this section create value for the individual capitalist? This first passage reads to me as though Marx is saying that value actually can be created in circulation, but this conflicts with what I understood from Volume 1, namely that value is only created in production. What am I missing?

He goes on to say:

This already follows from the fact that these costs are different in different spheres of production, and here and there even for different individual capitals in one and the same sphere of production. By being added to the prices of commodities they are distributed in proportion to the amount to be borne by each individual capitalist. But all labour which adds value can also add surplus-value, and will always add surplus-value under capitalist production, as the value created by labour depends on the amount of the labour itself, whereas the surplus-value created by it depends on the extent to which the capitalist pays for it. Consequently costs which enhance the price of a commodity without adding to its use-value, which therefore are to be classed as unproductive expenses so far as society is concerned, may be a source of enrichment to the individual capitalist. On the other hand, as this addition to the price of the commodity merely distributes these costs of circulation equally, they do not thereby cease to be unproductive in character.

But what is the connection here? How does it follow that, because the costs of circulation discussed here are different for different individual capitalists, they can produce value for the individual capitalist while being unproductive for society as a whole? How does labor increase the value of a commodity (I assume we are still working under the assumption that price = value here) without "adding to its use-value"?

Later on:

As the costs of circulation necessitated by the formation of a commodity-supply are due merely to the time required for the conversion of existing values from the commodity-form into the money-form, hence merely to the particular social form of the production process (i.e., are due only to the fact that the product is brought forth as a commodity and must therefore undergo the transformation into money), these costs completely share the character of the circulation costs enumerated under I. On the other hand the value of the commodities is here preserved or increased only because the use-value, the product itself, is placed in definite material conditions which cost capital outlay and is subjected to operations which bring additional labour to bear on the use-values. However the computation of the values of commodities, the book-keeping incidental to this process, the transactions of purchase and sale, do not affect the use-value in which the commodity-value exists. They have to do only with the form of the commodity-value. Although in the case submitted [i.e., Corbet’s calculations given in Footnote 14. — Ed.] the costs of forming a supply (which is here done involuntarily) arise only from a delay in the change of form and from its necessity, still these costs differ from those mentioned under I, in that their purpose is not a change in the form of the value, but the preservation of the value existing in the commodity as a product, a utility, and which cannot be preserved in any other way than by preserving the product, the use-value, itself. The use-value is neither raised nor increased here; on the contrary, it diminishes. But its diminution is restricted and it is preserved. Neither is the advanced value contained in the commodity increased here; but new labour, materialised and living, is added.

What I understand from this is that, so far as labor is concerned merely with the form of the commodity-value, such labor does not enter into the value of commodities (can such costs then be included among the "genuine" costs of circulation?). On the other hand, so far as the preservation of the use-value is the actual useful effect aimed at, and therefore so far as labor acts upon the use-value itself, then such labor does enter into the value of commodities. Thus, taking into account the discussion on the different forms of the product supply which follows this, does this mean that the costs of formation of a commodity supply are distinguished by whether they arise specifically from the commodity form of the supply or whether such costs arise on the basis of the need to preserve the use-value of the product, regardless of what form it takes, with only the latter costs entering into the value of commodities? That is what I took to be the conclusion from these two paragraphs:

Since the commodity-supply is nothing but the commodity-form of the product which at a particular level of social production would exist either as a productive supply (latent production fund) or as a consumption-fund (reserve of means of consumption) if it did not exist as a commodity-supply, the expenses required for its preservation, that is, the costs of supply formation — i.e., materialised or living labour spent for this purpose — are merely expenses incurred for maintaining either the social fund for production or the social fund for consumption. The increase in the value of commodities caused by them distributes these costs simply pro rata over the different commodities, since the costs differ with different kinds of commodities. And the costs of supply formation are as much as ever deductions from the social wealth, although they constitute one of the conditions of its existence.

Only to the extent that the commodity-supply is a premise of commodity circulation and is itself a form necessarily arising in commodity circulation, only in so far as this apparent stagnation is therefore a form of the movement itself, just as the formation of a money-reserve is a premise of money circulation — only to that extent is such stagnation normal. But as soon as the commodities lying in the reservoirs of circulation do not make room for the swiftly succeeding wave of production, so that the reservoirs become over-stocked, the commodity-supply expands in consequence of the stagnation in circulation just as the hoards increase when money-circulation is clogged. It does not make any difference whether this jam occurs in the warehouses of the industrial capitalist or in the storerooms of the merchant. The commodity-supply is in that case not a prerequisite of uninterrupted sale, but a consequence of the impossibility of selling the goods. The costs are the same, but since they now arise purely out of the form, that is to say, out of the necessity of transforming the commodities into money and out of the difficulty of going through this metamorphosis, they do not enter into the values of the commodities but constitute deductions, losses of value in the realisation of the value.

But this still leaves me with some questions. Would these costs then be what Marx is referring to when he said that circulation costs can arise from "from processes of production which are only continued in circulation", and is that why they enter into the value of the commodities here? And again, how can production processes continue in circulation given the passage from chapter 5 quoted above?

So I have this friend who I’m in a casual relationship with and I grew to like him a few years ago. We met working together in a factory and it was a super oppressive environment. He is black and was convicted of a felony when he was 18 and I met him 7 years later right after his release. Im latina (indigenous) and white and was homeless at the time. Anyway we still talk and since the election we’ve talked about politics. I was caught off guard when he said basically that he supports Trump because of his focus on immigration. Obviously I personally got really angry and confused bc my closest family are immigrants, and Trump is sexist, racist, etc. But the more we talk it seems like he really doesn’t know what hes talking about …?

An important point is that at the factory it used to be a lot of Black ppl working there but a majority were fired and replaced with Venezuelan immigrants, who now mistreat him. I dont work there anymore but I didn’t even like them either when it happened and thought it was really fcked up. I talked to one underage coworker who told me without shame how he looks down on Black people and other Latinos. It reminds me of when Trump said immigrants are taking Black jobs and well.. this definitely looks that way.

All this is to say, I understand my friends perspective. And I read an article about how a good percentage of incarcerated people and felons feel more aligned with Trump because he is a felon, and feel alienated by Kamala who was a prosecutor. This friend has told me he thinks Trump is going to help him get off probation sooner. Im finding myself kind of lost now because i havent had any black or brown friends who voiced support for Trump before. I feel like I should at least try to continue discussing this because I think we both should learn more.

Im recently coming back to communism after I was abused by another communist and developed ptsd. Im rusty, but I think a start is rereading Mao particularly on the mass line. Im also aware that this Black vs Latino conflict is a distraction from the class struggle but how can this be communicated when anti-Black Latinos are a real problem? Im not sure how successful I’ll be but I would like some thoughts or suggestions on what to read.

I heard that the United Kingdom and Japan were also invited to the 1st May 1941 military parade in Soviet Union, not only Nazi Germany like some right-wingers said. Is it true and is there any source to prove that?

I've read the MIM (prisons) article on veganism (https://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/wim/cong/vegan.html)

But I don't really understand what the correct stance is. They say 'There is no meaningful non-religious view that holds the "rights" of animals to be similar to those of humyns with regard to "murder."', but at the same time, if veganism would contribute positively to the environment, should I be vegan?

I feel like you either make the mistake of thinking you as an individual can truly make a positive change by making a single life-style choice or you make the mistake of equivocating animals to humans.

This doesn't get into the expenses, which I have no idea if veganism is cheap or expensive, in my small amount of research, it could be cheap where I live but it's not the case everywhere.

Throughout history, we have witnessed the brutal suppression of communist movements and leftist political opposition by various wealthy and powerful individuals and groups. From the Nazi persecution of communists to the U.S.-backed military dictatorships in Latin America, the fight against communism has often been marked by violence, propaganda, and human rights abuses.

While the common justifications for these actions include the perceived threat to the capitalist way of life and the fear of losing wealth and power, I want to delve deeper into the specific individuals who have been instrumental in orchestrating and executing these campaigns.

Who are the key figures throughout history that have mobilized armies, death squads, and propaganda machines to eradicate those with communist ideas and ideals? Beyond the well-known dictators and political leaders, I'm interested in learning about the lesser-known individuals, such as industrialists, business magnates, and other influential figures who have played significant roles in shaping anti-communist policies and actions.

How do these individuals coordinate their efforts, and what motivates them beyond the simplistic explanations of preserving their wealth and status? Are there any particular organizations, networks, or cabals that have been especially effective in steering anti-communist violence and propaganda?

I'm looking for insights that go beyond the surface-level explanations and shed light on the specific actors and power structures behind the suppression of communist movements. Any information, resources, or personal insights would be greatly appreciated.

Pëtr Alekseev speech at the 'Trial of Fifty

“Pyotr Alexeyev was a very popular figure, and the Moscow Weavers, who affectionately called him "Petrukha," remembered him for a long time. Arrested for carrying on revolutionary activities he made a speech at his trial on March 10, 1877 which he concluded with the following words: "The muscular arm of the working millions will be lifted, and the yoke of despotism, guarded by the soldiers' bayonets, will be smashed to atoms!" Lenin called this speech the "great prophecy of the Russian worker-revolutionary.”

Does anyone have any link or access to his full speech? kindly share it with me here since I'm unable to find it.