It’s great to see you reading! One thing I do want to point out, though, Principles of Communism is more of an FAQ than a developed and principled response to each question. It’s helpful for getting terms straight, but can also lead to people like yourself reading more into each line than is likely intended. I’ll respond to 16 and 24.

Re: 16, the question of reform or revolution, and the theory of the State. Revolution, in the Marxist sense, does not mean killing everyone that would oppose you, even the bourgeoisie. Revolution requires overthrowing the State, and replacing it with one that is comprehensively for the workers. It does not mean forming a small band of warriors to go and kill grandma for renting out a house so she can retire, it means guiding the revolution that will redistribute land while providing safety nets that make it so that grandma doesn’t need to be a landlord to survive.

When Communists and Socialists say “violence is necessary,” they mean that never in history has a ruling class given up power by force. The fun thing about the ruling class, though, is that it’s small. It can only rely on the state to do its bidding and fight, it cannot fight by itself. Jeff Bezos is not going to grab a rifle and fight a glorious war. What’s interesting about various Socialist revolutions, like in Russia, frequently the army stands down. The reason for this is that revolution isn’t something you can just do, it happens when the overwhelming majority of the population (total, not just the proletariat, though these are often very similar numbers as the proletariat outnumbers every other class in most nations), and the army frequently stands down in mass.

There are violent and lengthy revolutions, such as the Chinese revolution. This one was a long and bloody fight against colonialism, and then against a nationalist dictatorship. The people, however, supported the Communists, which is why they won. Cuba was an example of a mid-length revolution. There was a revolutionary war, but similar to Russia, the army did not fight very hard as they were in it for money, while the campesinos and beardos were in it for a better world.

There are also dogmatic, anti-Marxist “Marxists,” like the Shining Path in Peru under Gonzalo. They are little more than a band of murderous thugs that think “class struggle” means killing villagers that don’t agree, or randomly assassinating politicians instead of building up a mass movement. These are the people you are referring to as your fear, and they do exist, but are in an incredible minority globally.

I recommend reading Reform or Revolution by Rosa Luxemburg and Lenin’s The State and Revolution for why revolution is necessary. Entirely peaceful methods have been tried, like Allende in Chile, and they get overthrown by the bourgeoisie against the people, along with the US.

Re: question 24. Revolution does not happen without a broad, mass, organized movement. If that movement does not exist, there will be no revolution. When Engels says these reactionary types must be opposed, he means so ideologically, so that when a revolution does happen, the revolution will take a correct character. It does not mean killing everyone that disagrees, it means you must thoroughly debunk and discredit incorrect viewpoints, and if they engage violently (as the SPD did against the KPD in Germany, or some of the reactionary “left” groups in Russia during the Russian Civil War), defend yourself if you must.

As for as distinguishing between Proletarian and Petty Bourgeois, it’s not necessary at the individual level. Marxism is not a moral judgement, but an analysis of how classes behave in society. It doesn’t mean killing the petite bourgeoisie, it means working towards abolishing the foundations of the petite bourgeoisie through collectivization at the degree to which production has developed. Make sense? You’d keep your head, unless you decided to take up arms against a popular revolution and gave the people no other choice. Marxism isn’t about collectivizing through killing the owners, but through siezing the state and weilding its power to gradually fold more production into the public sector. You can’t kill a farm into a collectivized industrial farm, you have to develop out of small ownership.

When people say “kill the landlords” online, they are usually expressing frustration at the parasitic nature of landlordism, they are not announcing that they intend to kill grandma. I really want to stress this, the Marxist goal is not to achieve classless society by killing owners. Rather, the Marxist position is that you can’t achieve classless society that way, as each level of development best coincides with different forms of ownership, and it is highly developed industry that can best be publicly owned and planned.

As for Capital, I actually recommend staying away from it until you get some more of the basics of theory under your belt. You’ll notice its absence from my intro reading list, it’s an advanced text! It’s certainly a critical read, but if you want to get into the economic side, I recommend Wage Labor and Capital and Wages, Price, and Profit. Both combined are very short compared to even a single volume of Capital’s 3. However, I won’t stop you if you’ve decided to dive into the deep end! I just think you’ll understand it better if you are more familiar with Dialectical Materialism and Scientific Socialism first.

Glad you’re reading, feel free to ask more questions! If you want to ask questions, the Marxism comm on Hexbear is a good spot, or Ask Lemmygrad on Grad, or the Socialism and Communism communities on Lemmy.ml.

No problem, never apologize for being curious! I mainly use this account to try and gain comrades and correct misconceptions about theory when I can, so it isn’t wasted time by any stretch! And developing a plan is excellent, I always recommend that if I can, many people meander and spend far more time than necessary as a consequence.

If you’ve seen my “Read Theory, Darn it!” intro reading list, you’ll find that the way I structured it is focused on building up over time. I start with a quick FAQ from Engels, then Blackshirts and Reds to dispel common red scare myths and promote a sympathetic view towards the people in Socialist countries in their real struggles to build real Socialism.

After that, though, it delves into the theory side, in a specific order. I start with Dialectical Materialism, as it’s by far the most useful concept to understand first. It’s kinda like approaching the world from a scientific point of view, always stressing to view things as they exist in context and in motion, rather than isolated and static. After that comes the Law of Value, and the concept of Scientific Socialism, then we return to Socialist history and Imperialism/Colonialism, Social theory, then putting it all into practice.

I bring this up, because if you really study the Dialectical Materialism section well, you’ll already be equipped to do your own political analysis from the Socialist viewpoint, even if you don’t fully understand the Law of Value, the theory of the State, etc. Those all help contextualize, but in my opinion that’s the single biggest step you can take in knowledge of Marxism, and when you can consider the most critical “pre-req” research relatively solid. Studying Cuba after you get those basics firmly down will help you see what they are trying to do, and measure how they are doing in your own eyes, for whenever you can make it to Havana.

Now, you can always spend way more time reading, but you can also start reading Che Guevara’s speeches and writings as well as Fidel Castro’s interviews and whatnot to begin to get some context on the thoughts and actions of Cuban revolutionary leaders. I also recommend researching what happened to Slavador Allende in Chile, who tried to play by the rules, so to speak, rather than going the revolutionary path. This is an important point of contrast to put the success of the Cuban Revolution in context.

Feel free to ask any questions you want, no worries!

Nobody defines economics as “have or have nots” or denies that trade existed a long, long time ago. I think you’re missing the point of class society and how that plays in economics, but isn’t all-encompassing of it.

It isn’t about oppression or being oppressed.

I’m actually primarily talking to people that disagree with me, here. If you look at the other comments, most of my time is spent explaining the difference between Capitalism and Commerce.

People like yourself that take issue with it have largely taken to the comments, I’ve achieved my goal.

I understand your caution, though it’s best to contextualize why Socialist States often have long-serving leaders. As Socialism generally exists under siege, often times there is heavy millitarization and political stability is prioritized. The people generally approve, be it through elections or general support, as the Socialist system would fail if it lost the support of the people. Looking more into various Socialist leaders, like Che Guevara and Fidel Castro from a proletarian point of view, can help contextualize. Blowback season 2 is about Cuba, for example, and has helped me understand Cuba more.

What’s important to understand is that, for Marxists, public ownership and planning in a world government run democratically is the end-game, not necessarily worker self-management. This gets more into the economic basis of Marxism, but Marxists don’t see administration as the same as the “state,” a highly millitarized entity, but that the state can only wither when class is abolished globally.

Tito is an interesting case. Yugoslavian Socialism was loved by the people, but also depended heavily on IMF loans that ended up being its undoing. Some Socialists hated Tito for being a revisionist, and for splitting from the USSR, some believe Tito’s Socialism was the best example of Socialism in practice.

The standard Marxist-Leninist take is that Tito’s Socialism was undone by tying to the West via IMF loans, and thus can’t be seen as a true measure, but that it was still an example of how a generally Socialist system can achieve great things, even if its brand of Socialism was distinctly diverted from traditional Marxism at the time.

Didn’t put that together, that would be really funny!

There’s a lot of discussion going on here, from what I see.

Fairly certain drag is a troll, honestly. drag has done similarly clearly wrong trains of thought and validates “soulists.”

Marx doesn’t acknowledge “human nature is to oppress or be oppressed,” though. Marx builds the economic analysis of class society and charts how it will eventually erase its own foundations. Primitive communistic societies did not usually have classes, as they didn’t have an economic basis for it.

Communism would be centralized, but it would also be democratized.

Your background makes a ton of sense as to why you’ve been able to essentially grasp the essense of Marxism-Leninism, without committing to studying it. This is a very common phenomenon! The reverse is also true. I live in the US, and Marxism-Leninism is an extreme minority here, because many are “bribed” by the spoils of Imperialism, on top of the US being founded on Settler Colonialism.

I think it’s an excellent choice to focus on Cuba and Venezuela, given their proximity. As a precursor, I’ll state that both face economic pressure from Imperialist countries far beyond what other countries in the Global South normally face, due to nationalizing parts of their economies, and pulling those resources out of the hands of Imperialists, so to speak. Many fleeing are from privledged backgrounds who lost their property when their assets were siezed for the public, but sadly there are also those whose economic conditions were very dire, primarily due to sanctions. Cuba in particular is under intense embargo, as I’m sure you know.

One thing that’s important to know, is that Venezuela is better described as pseudo-socialist, while Cuba is Socialist. Venezuela is a petro-state, and is similar ecomomically to Social Democracy in the Nordic Countries, but without the Imperialism inflating the lifestyles of those within. Cuba on the other hand is Socialist because large firms and key industries are overwhelmingly in the public sector. Cuba is generally more supported by its own people, even if circumstances during and post-COVID have been more dire. Normally, Cuba does well for itself when measured against its peers despite the sanctions.

As for Maduro, I myself am not an expert. It is generally believed that he was democratically elected among Socialist circles, and that the US supports candidates and calls foul when elections are close in an effort to practice regime change, like with Guaido. Democracy is an important part of Socialism, as “commandism” separates the party from the masses, and loses support for the system. You can read an example of a publication from a Marxist-Leninist org on the Venezuelan elections here, from Liberation News, run by the US-based Party for Socialism and Liberation.

Sadly, this isn’t an area I have studied thoroughly. As such, I can only say that this looks outwardly like a narrow but legitimate election that the US is trying to overthrow. The reason I say this is because it’s a tried and true tradition of the US to stir up opposition to those who would oppose their plunder. Maduro did declare himself a Marxist-Leninist on TV, but I myself am again not super familiar with the Bolivar Revolution or Maduro himself.

So, to summarize, Socialists support Venezuela’s attempts at taking control over their own economy and resisting the US’s Imperialist ambitions for their economy. The actual specifics are debated, but this resistance to Imperialism itself is seen as progressive, regardless of the successes or failures of the government. More nuanced critique can be had from those who have done more research than I, but that is the general opinion of Marxists as far as I am aware.

Marx states that all hitherto existing history is the history of Class Struggles. In analyzing tribal societies, he did so as they did indeed lack class, money, and a state, but were distinctly not “Communist” as production was low, and life relatively harsh and brutal. Communism as a mode of production is the classless society of the future, the end of class struggle. There will be new contradictions and new changes, most likely, but class as a concept is abolished through a global, publicly owned and planned industrial economy, in Marx’s analysis.

The creation of the aqueducts. I am aware of how they functioned technically.

Again, though, I think you’re either conflating Capitalism with accumulation in general, or trying to make the argument that I don’t think accumulation existed prior to Capitalism. I’m not really sure where we disagree, to be honest, I’m not sure what point you’re making.

I stole the meme, so 🤷

Just wrote the text.

I recommend this thread, though maybe don’t bother going down the chain that far as it becomes a stalemate.

Essentially, you’re correct in that tribal societies were very communistic, but not Communist. Marxists call this “primitive communism,” as a distinguishing factor from Communism, a highly industrialized and global society emerging from Socialism.

The truth is, all modes of production are “human nature.” Human nature, after all, is malleable, and is largely determined by which mode of production humanity finds itself in. Each mode of production turns into another due to human nature, Capitalism is merely also human nature, just like feudalism, tribal societies, as is Socialism and eventually Communism.

The technical constraints were also constraints on the Mode of Production. The Roman Aqueducts were largely slave driven like the rest of Roman society, not through commodity production and the M-C-M’ circuit affording it. Rome also extracted vast rents from the colonies.

Elements of the old exist in the new, and elements of the new existed in the old, yes. However, Capitalism as an encompassing system is only a few hundred years old.

It’s extremely relevant, because the manner of production is entirely different. In feudalism, as an example, production was largely agricultural, while serfs tilled their parcel of land and produced most of what they consumed for themselves. They didn’t compete in markets, as an example, and specialization was relatively limited outside of handicraftsmen.

If you fail to accurately analyze the differences between modes of production, you fail to find meaningful conclusions. Oak trees aren’t penguins, even though both are living things.

I’d argue the teaching is in the comments for those who disagree but wish to learn. All good agitprop sparks discussion, not quiet acceptance or dismissal.

You’re using Capitalism as a catch-all term for Class Society. Different forms of Class Society have existed for thousands of years, but Capitalism itself is relatively new.

Answered here. Commerce isn’t Capitalism, and neither is small manufacture.

I disagree. Back in earlier forms of agricultural accumulation, technology hadn’t developed the same system of rapid expansionism as Capitalism and the creation of large industry has brought. The M-C-M’ circuit wasn’t always here. Class society has existed, but not the same mechanisms of Capitalism as an encompassing system.