110
For the theory and practice of Marxism Powered by @r_channels and @reddit2telegram
bureaucratic feudal basis (this being combined with a general adoption of the Chinese feudal superstructure in the ideological sphere). The rich peasant class which was the principal beneficiaries of land redistribution developed into the samurai landlord class, which would assert its principality with the decline of the bureaucratic feudal state apparatus by the 10th-12th centuries; the Kamakura Shogunate was the inevitable full realization of the samurai landlord class's rising aspect, and marked the origin of seigneurial feudalism as Japan's "particular" feudal form.
Europe has not yet been considered. This is because, while Eastern Europe had a relatively normal initial feudal development, Western Europe's was absolutely exceptional. It also, due to the emergence of capitalist production from Western Europe's feudal mode of production, happened to be the form that Marx and Engels specifically analyzed under the assumption that its development was universal, which is the source of much confusion in later Marxist consideration of this matter. The degeneration of the Roman slave mode of production (which, itself, was an exceptional form of this mode of production) led to the development of a seigneurial feudal landlord class in Western Europe alongside the origin of Western European feudalism; the initial bureaucratic feudal phase (except, perhaps, in England, though even there, feudalism had become seigneurial by the Norman Conquest), never truly occurred. It was only in the form of later, advanced feudal absolutism, that bureaucratic feudalism emerged in Western Europe alongside primitively accumulating mercantile capital and the buds of the capitalist mode of production.
This is only an initial, underdeveloped consideration. Advanced feudalism, when not transcended by an indigenous development of industrial capital, was transformed into semi-feudalism with their subsumption to European capitalist colonialism (though this occurred even where advanced feudalism, or feudalism at all, did not exist). Could semi-feudalism be understood as "seigneurial"? At that point, it seems to be a worthless distinction considering the fact that semi-feudalism is constitutive of world capitalism-imperialism, but bureaucratic feudalism does still seem to exist as a manifestation of bureaucratic bourgeois class interest within exceptionally underdeveloped imperialized states. I would appreciate feedback and/or criticism
(*) In advanced Indian feudalism, the "lower" bureaucratic form reasserted itself, being fully realized with the reforms of Sher Shah and Akbar and persisting until its subsumption by British capital.
https://redd.it/1m8dmkq
@r_communism
A critique of Perry Anderson's general theory of the feudal mode of production, and theorization of its two contradictory forms: Bureaucratic and Seigneurial Feudalism
As compared to capitalism (understandably), I've found past Marxist analysis of the tendencies of motion and development of the feudal mode of production to be rather lacking. Even Perry Anderson, while his analysis of the development of European feudalism (and even other feudalisms) is rather solid, bases his understanding of the mode of production on the particular form that it took in certain regional contexts, such that, by his definition, only the European and Japanese feudal modes of production were "feudalism" proper: the principal role, within a dialectical materialist understanding, played by the relations of production in constituting a mode of production is completely absent from his analysis.
The essence of the feudal mode of production is in its fundamental/principal productive relation, between the landlord class and the peasantry, and is characterized by the principality of the contradiction between these two classes. The contradictions contained within these productive relations enable an immense expansion of the agricultural (and other) productive forces, and as such, it is the mode of production in which the commodity-form (in general: there were immense variations between regional feudalisms, and bends in the road within them) transforms from being occupied by a marginal share of the social product to a principal regulator of social reproduction (especially after feudal state taxes come to take the money-form, late in its development), by which the conditions for subsumption by industrial capital emerged, even where it did not independently come into existence. This tendency allowed the full development of mercantile capital. This is the feudal mode of production's basic essence. Anderson's error was in neglecting the essence for particular analysis of its European (or Japanese) form as inherently exceptional, but the reverse error should also not be made even after grasping its essence, analysis must be made of its varied regional forms.
This is of great significance, because in its basic character, the European feudal mode of production was not, in fact, exceptional, and yet the independent emergence of the capitalist mode of production from its loins was so: the tendencies of motion that produced this uneven development (prior to post 16th century primitive accumulation, whose role is obvious and was ultimately only a reflection and furthering of previously developed tendencies, as manifested mostly clearly in the unusually well-developed character of "medieval" Western European mercantile capital), then, necessarily emerges in the particular form of Western European feudalism. I will not be answering here what that particular formal distinction was, since I'm still far from sure of it myself: rather, I will posit my theorization of a more basic contradiction between two different forms of regional feudalism, which will perhaps provide the groundwork to reaching a greater deal of clarity on this question.
There are two general forms of feudal mode of production: bureaucratic feudalism, and seigneurial feudalism. Again, the basic relations of production within these forms remain the same: the distinction is between the particular character of the landlord class in question, and its relation to feudal state power. In seigneurial feudalism, feudal land ownership takes the form of private property, and as such is unconditional and hereditary. In bureaucratic feudalism, the feudal state itself is the owner of all land, and the landlord class's ability to extract feudal surplus is mediated by its power. In the former, inter-feudal contradictions largely manifest themselves between the landlord class and the feudal state power, which, while ultimately reflective (in most cases) of the entire class's interests, imposes itself as a separate entity over and above the landlord class (or, in other cases, between members of the
The United $tates Is A Fascist Country
https://www.prisoncensorship.info/article/the-united-tates-is-a-fascist-country/
https://redd.it/1m7okzf
@r_communism
help your fellow comrade pls
Hello comrades,
I'm an assigned male at birth (AMAB) person from Kashmir, currently living in mainland India. I've witnessed the weight of occupation and the collective struggle for Kashmiri liberation, a struggle deeply entangled with the structures of militarism, enforced silence, and colonial violence. My father serves in the Indian army, and as a consequence of ideological divergence and familial rupture, I was financially and emotionally abandoned when I moved to Delhi. This material estrangement has shaped my life profoundly.
Since childhood, I’ve known that queerness shaped my experience of the world. But queerness, in a world so deeply gendered and hierarchical, is not just about desire, it is about dislocation. I’ve lived the compounded realities of casteism, homophobia, patriarchy, and national marginalisation. I do not merely identify as queer; I have endured queerness.
As I navigate the terrains of gender, I’m confronted with confusion. I do not feel like a "man," but I struggle to comprehend what that feeling even entails. I do live within the material shell of masculinity, socially assigned privileges, threats, and assumptions, but internally, I often feel like a ghost in a system not built for me. The category of “woman” both resonates and escapes me. I'm not sure I am a woman, but I know I'm not at ease with what this society has told me a man is.
Some of my AMAB trans comrades have shared their choice to postpone gender transition until “after the revolution,” believing that in a truly classless, genderless society, these binaries will dissolve. I understand the material constraints behind such a position. But I also fear: if we wait indefinitely for the horizon of a liberated future, will we ever learn how to live freely now?
As for the term “non-binary”, I often wrestle with it. It seems, at times, detached from the social-material relations that structure our lives. In a society where everything from toilets to labour to violence is gendered, I wonder if the act of stepping outside gender (especially as a liberal identity) can truly be radical, or if it only obscures the very terrain we must confront.
I’m not looking for abstract validation, but for comradeship in grappling with this. What does it mean to resist gender under capitalism, as someone whose body has been marked, conscripted, and policed into masculinity, yet internally refuses it?
I would deeply appreciate any Marxist, Maoist, or dialectical materialist readings on gender and queerness. Works that do not romanticise the body but instead examine how gender is lived and resisted under conditions of exploitation, racialisation, and imperialism.
https://redd.it/1m77en3
@r_communism
Are social democrats the last real bastion against dystopian capitalism?
I’ve been grappling with a realization I didn’t expect to have. As someone who’s always leaned far left, I used to look down on social democrats. I saw them as reformist, weak, too willing to compromise with a system that needs fundamental change. They weren’t revolutionary enough. They were defending a system that was broken at its core. But now I’m starting to think they might be doing the most important work on the left.
With the rise of tech capitalism, automation, platform monopolies, surveillance states, and a creeping corporate takeover of public life, the idea of a revolution seems increasingly implausible. There won’t be a workers’ uprising, not when labor is being replaced by machines, and when dissent can be algorithmically tracked, flagged, and neutralized before it even spreads.
In this world, social democrats, the ones still fighting for public healthcare, labor protections, taxes on the ultra-rich, environmental regulation, may be the only force slowing down the collapse into a dystopia run by corporations, enforced by robotic police, and governed by algorithms rather than laws.
We’ve reached a strange moment where the left has become the conservative force, not in ideology, but in the defense of the very idea of human society: solidarity, equality, public life. etc. Social democracy may be flawed and compromised, but without it, the future might not be privatized, it might be erased.
tldr: So here’s my question: Are social democrats really the last bastion of hope for a livable world? Or is that just another trap to keep us from imagining something better?
I would like to hear some different opinions on this. (I’m not really sure if this is against the sub rules or not, sorry if it is)
https://redd.it/1m68diq
@r_communism
Funniest argument for Capitalism
I saw a post in r/DebateCommunism where some guy had made an argument that if Socialism is better system why has it not replaced capitalism.
This argument is so ignorant.
Monarchy and Feudalism was the most prevalent ideology for centuries. The ideas were clearly flawed, the power dynamics favoured the nobles, most kings called themselves worthy of ruling because they had god gifted right to rule. Does that mean they would have supported feudalism in the 18 th century?
It took years for the French revolution to happen, then it had a dictator, then again a monarch then again a liberal democracy. The French revolution did not happen easily nor did it happen non-violently. The moderates and the radicals did not agree on most things. The moderates wanted to have a constitutional monarchy, and did not want major social reforms. Things that we take for granted today, was a long struggle. And the French revolution resulted in a Noble Ruling class getting replaced by a Bourgeois Ruling class which for most parts in the world included the Nobles instead of discarding them. Even the voting rights were limited for many years. And even today there are many countries with a monarchy, and some feudalistic practices. So capitalism took years to be achieved, the liberal democratic practice took years to be achieved.
So the Idea of changing power dynamics in favour of the Proletariat is a one day thing ? It does not matter if the USSR exists or not, it does not matter if China and Vietnam are Capitalist systems. Marx gave a framework, the leaders after Marx tried to work under that framework. They made some progress and they made some mistakes. It is our responsibility to acknowledge the mistakes and ensure it does not happen again and take the progress they made and build on top of that.
So you cannot compare capitalism after it is achieved with socialism when it is in a process. Because the process to achieve Capitalism and Liberal Democracy was bloody, chaotic, with trials and errors, with people not willing to take the entire power away from Nobles, with multiple failures and hiccups, took many turns, and finally most members of the Third Estate were betrayed.
Socialism and the process to achieve it also has had issues. But in the process it was still much better than the Capitalist systems it tried to replace. Just like the provincial governments during Liberal democracy movements, were still much better than the Monarchial Structures it tried to replace. That does not mean they were not chaotic or did not have issues, just it tried to do away with the absolute powers the monarch had. This is why we defend those countries who tried to achieve Socialism. Not blindly but with context.
Also my last point during the French revolution, most Monarchs in Europe tried to destabilize them, re-establish the monarchy, declared several wars on them. Similar things happened with Socialist States like the USSR, Cuba, China, Burkina Faso.
Even today the Radicals are seen in bad light, but if you look at the demands made by Radicals vs the demands made by moderates, it is clear who wanted progressive change and better power dynamics and who were bootlickers. The life we enjoy today is because of the demands Radicals made, although ridiculed during their time and still ridiculed today.
Why are liberals and moderates so afraid of any change in political system? Do they think capitalism and system they live in was present from the beginning of time ? Its like I love the political and economic freedom but not the process to achieve it. Offcourse the process is difficult but the change in power dynamics is necessary.
https://redd.it/1m5qq9z
@r_communism
Miners Strike UK Book Recommendations
As someone from Nottingham, I've been interested in the topic for a while and I'd like to learn more, does anyone have any book recommendations?
https://redd.it/1m5hg2r
@r_communism
What would a fully decommodified, worker-run, patient-governed health service actually look like in practice?
And how could we keep it efficient and adaptive without letting bureaucratic drift or market creep erode equity?
Not chasing utopia—just interested in the next workable upgrade that can deepen democratic control. I think a few simple guardrails (open-data audits, local fab-lab clusters, a publicly funded pharma arm + essential generics at cost) could lock in transparency and constant innovation.
https://redd.it/1m54iq7
@r_communism
Reversing recent changes to the subreddit and feedback
You may have all noticed that an alt account of a mod has been recently making a bunch of changes and defending them with a combination of extreme hostility to the members of the subreddit, selective bans and post deletions, and weaponizing careful and empathetic discussion of phenomena like "fandom" and "petty-bourgeoisie" to impose these changes. As you can probably guess, that was the same mod who did the same thing a couple of months ago and a bunch of people were banned. I have now removed that mod.
This thread is for you all to give feedback on that decision and the state of the subreddit. If you were banned in the previous round of these events, feel free to ask to be unbanned and I will consider it. If you were unbanned but afraid to speak up, everyone is safe here. If you think that mod was doing great things, let me know, though there is what I consider bullying behind the scenes of posters and myself that would prevent me from adding them again. I'm sure many of you have grudges against me and I deserve criticism for my part in ignoring these events. I will try my best to take it, my only condition is that, to respect the wishes of that mod to not be personally targeted, I will not say their username or let people speculate on it.
If you are interested in being a mod, we really need people who know anything at all about how reddit works. For example, the mod removed bi-weekly discussion threads to force people to post regularly, which is taking a wrecking ball to a minor issue (since the posts that were made in the bi-weekly discussion thread were usually excellent so it clearly serves a function). I would like to bring it back but don't know how.
Ultimately things came to a boiling point because I was afraid the subreddit(s) had fallen into a death spiral, where there are not enough posts for people to check every day which makes people not get timely responses when they do post and both sides lose interest, and took some unilateral actions I believed would help. This is also a unilateral action, I didn't consult with anyone else and am recently embracing more explicitly my power as senior most mod. Recently the subreddit is more active (which that mod would surely take credit for) but, as people have pointed out here and in pms, that activity is not what we want or what we are known for. I would like there to be good activity, even if slow, as long as it doesn't become days or weeks of nothing. Some of this is inevitable as r/socialism_101 and r/thedeprogram take functions that used to be exclusively ours but I still encourage anyone who has ideas about how to keep the subreddits active. I think the bigger issue is r/communism101, which has always had an unclear purpose given every question that could possibly be asked has already been answered and AI can do the job in an even more lazy way. Regardless, I want you all to tell me what would make you feel comfortable posting and whether you can forgive recent events, about which many of you have already reached out to me in pms.
https://redd.it/1m51jjl
@r_communism
Telegram channel for the materials in the Marxist archive site
Especially the revolutionary songs categorized by the country and occasion if anyone knows such a channel please show me.
https://redd.it/1m4rmq3
@r_communism
Why People Join Maoist Movements: Understanding the Naxal Issue in India
https://polynomyx.blogspot.com/2025/07/why-people-join-maoist-movements.html
https://redd.it/1m3x4yk
@r_communism
Trying to understand settler-colonialism in brazil
Yes I read the few posts about this, so what I have gathered is that (and this was obvious even when reading settlers by J Sakai) is that Brazil was a settler-colonialist project from its start, that is clear, it maintained the element of displacement and ethnic cleansing of existing indigenous nations to create a new settler nation/society which is Brazil, it also had the importing of Afrikan peoples to form a oppressed, colonized Afrikan nation, which were deprived of land and did all the actual work, from the Lei de terras which had as a legal mechanism clearing forests and creating private property latifúndio for the white Brazil nation, to even after the abolishment of Lei de terras following the so-called abolition of slavery there have been ongoing mechanism of settler-colonialism and land theft to provide cheap land from the Brazilian nation at the cost of indigenous nations, such as the settler-colonialist efforts in Mato grosso, paraguay by gaúcho settlers, and the so-called immigration (really colonisation) of the european colonists imported after the Abolition of slavery, such as the italian, german, gaúcho, settlers, the ongoing institutionalized disguised grilagem mechanism for colonisation of the specially the amazon, in places like roraima it is not possible for the expanding of indigeneous reservations by law and you can find land for as cheap as 2.5k R$ a acre, or the gentrification of communities forming a settler-colonialist relation which is in pratice a whitening of mostly mostly-black neighborhoods.
Now it is clear that the ongoing land theft, displacement, and ethinic cleansing constitute settler-colonialism, Brazil is clearly a settler-colonial state! The question I have here is weather this is a primary or secondary contradiction. And as I saw someone mention in another post about it, weather it has persisted, weather Brazil has had the settler relations of value theft from opressed nations to maintain a settler class, and who is pertaining to this class. How to see the relations between the mostly white middle class Brazilian nation and the Afrikan peripheral, favelada, mostly black nation, it is clear that it isn't a clear racial division though I think, and since there are settlers, who are they who in Brazil constitutes a settler-colonialist relation, how to comprehend the position of the peasantry who work in latifúndio that displaces tradional communities, including independant pensantry of agricultura familiar by land theft, I saw someone mention that italian and german settlers are not opressed by latifúndio and hence the LCP (liga dos camponeses pobres) line on this was wrong, I wanna understand how is that so from that pespective, because the person did not really elaborate on it, and at what point people who benefited from land theft and displacement stop having settler-colonialist relations if other than the land there isn't any more ongoing value theft of these independent pensants from other nations, specifically looking at those European settlers in agricultura familiar in the South and Southeast such as the gaúcho, I would also like to understand if ongoing land theft and displacement is only done by latifúndio or has small independant pesants on it too.
Those are my questions, but if you got other information relating to it I would also like to know, I wanna understand as much of this as possible, Im also messaging the people who made and engaged in the previous posts and asking them for help in understanding this question
https://redd.it/1m40jx1
@r_communism
Need help from like minded people
Hello I’m a young Marxist and I just turned 18 very recently. I started working at Walmart immediately overnight because I had to, the job market is very horrible. I’m an immigrant with my mom being stuck in Iran and my dad being a deadbeat looser. I need to get out of this job, not only because it’s taking a toll on me but because I genuinely hate Walmart as a company so much. I need recommendations on what I could do that’s more ethical and something that won’t be as draining so I can focus on going to college like I’ve dreamed of. Maybe remote work idk. I live near LA and I really need recommendations , honestly I’ll take basically anything at this point I hate my life.
https://redd.it/1m3iht0
@r_communism
space.
Also, please let me know if I have made any errors in my claims about Michurinism.
https://redd.it/1m3qejj
@r_communism
Whats our thoughts homophobia and transphobia
Is this post even relevant to this sub
I for one believe that without equality theres still capitalism
https://redd.it/1m3d807
@r_communism
seigneurial landlord class). In the latter, the inter-feudal contradictions manifest themselves within the feudal state apparatus, as the ultimate source of feudal surplus that the entire landlord class is inextricably connected to. Within bureaucratic feudalism, it should be noted, there is a special sub-aspect in which there is no landlord class apart from the feudal state, which appropriates the entirety of the feudal surplus before further division amongst its functionaries: this, however, only appeared in extraordinary (but notable) cases. It should also be noted that certain feudal modes of production had both bureaucratic and seigneurial forms simultaneously: they are best thought, in a dialectical manner, as contradictory aspects, one being principal over the other but without the other necessarily being absent.
What Anderson considers to be just "feudalism" is, then, actually the seigneurial form of the feudal mode of production, as both Western European and Japanese (in the middle-to-late stage of its development) feudalisms were among the clearest manifestations of this form. "Middle-to-late stage", though, is crucial: feudal modes of production were forms of matter in motion, and as such, their forms shifted and developed alongside their general development. The general tendency was for the feudal mode of production to emerge in a bureaucratic form, and later, due to its tendencies of motion, "devolve" into a seigneurial form. There are many examples of this tendency, but I will briefly detail three: India, China, and Japan.
Indian feudalism emerged, in the Ganges valley, around 700-600 BC along bureaucratic lines, with the feudal state monopolizing feudal surplus extraction: this continued during the Maurya Empire. By the time of the Gupta Empire, this "higher" form of bureaucratic feudalism devolved into the lower form, with the feudal state assigning landholdings to bureaucratic landlords. After the collapse of the Gupta empire in the 6th century, assignments of landholdings gradually became hereditary, marking a transformation into seigneurial feudalism (this corresponded with a transformation in the feudal superstructure, from Buddhism as the principal form of feudal class ideology to Shaivite/Vaishnavite "Hinduism")*. In China, the feudal mode of production emerged from the slave mode of production amidst the pressures of the intense contradictions of the Spring and Autumn and Warring States period, by the end of the latter period in the 3rd century BC, the capacity for feudal state surplus extraction reached such an extent that the states were consistently capable of raising armies composed of hundreds of thousands of peasants. In the State of Qin, at the very least, there was no landlord class: the entirety of the feudal surplus was appropriated by the state apparatus. This continued after Qin conquered the other six Warring States, and into the early period of the Western Han, but by the 1st century BC, a landlord class had started to emerge and was able to concentrate feudal landholdings by offering better terms to the peasantry than the feudal state. The Xin Emperor Wang Mang attempted to suppress this class to shore up the state's finances, but it was the principal class tendency behind the Eastern Han, and by the Three Kingdoms period, it had become well-established. Its position was then strengthened in the subsequent 16 Kingdoms/Northern and Southern Dynasties period, before becoming decisively principal through the general crisis of the Tang Dynasty in the mid to late 8th century. Seigneurial and bureaucratic feudalism (the latter, insofar as the peasantry were directly taxed by the state as well as their landlord) would then coexist in the Chinese feudal mode of production until its dissolution with Liberation in 1949, but with the former being decisively the principal aspect. Japan is the clearest example. Its feudal mode of production emerged with the Taika Reforms in 645 CE, with the dissolution of its slave owning clan nobility and the appropriation of their landholdings on a
Looking for resources about the final years of the USSR
Hi friends. I have been having an ongoing debate with someone in my life about the efficacy of communism. They grew up in America so it’s been a journey. In a few short discussions though we’ve come a long way. There is so much propaganda to sift through in their responses and some absolutely blew me away (seriously. Crazy, unhinged stuff). But in our last discussion the ussr inevitably came up. ‘Communism is flawed because it will always lead to a dictatorship and people starving to death in the streets. I’ve seen pictures of long food lines and people starving so that must be true, right? When did the Soviet Union go from a place where people were generally happy to one where everyone was miserable, depressed and dying?’
Unfortunately saying “mmmm, that’s largely nonsense” isn’t an effective argument so I was hoping someone on here would have an easy to digest YouTube video or book recommendation that I can pass along. Thank you!
https://redd.it/1m87i5f
@r_communism
Lenin lived, Lenin lives, Lenin is to live forever
https://www.npr.org/2025/07/23/g-s1-77811/russia-lenin-tomb-moscow
https://redd.it/1m7eynf
@r_communism
Doubt about communism
Well, I'm new to the subject and I don't understand so well, I think there needs to be a revolution to reach socialism but I don't agree with communism because I don't think a stateless society would work, I would like to know if this opinion of mine is socialist/communist?
And already taking advantage of the doubt, I would like to know the opinion on how it would be possible for a stateless society to prevent capitalism from returning? Because it seems to me that communism would be a very vulnerable society.
I have this fear because I had contact with ancaps and I always thought it wouldn't work due to the lack of a state, but as I said, I don't understand much about it and I would like to know more, even if you could recommend me a book or video it would be very good!
Oh and sorry if I posted in the wrong /r
https://redd.it/1m6ltrp
@r_communism
Belgium Thinking of joining a union, but I don't really have enough time to research the different ones in my area, and I don't really feel like it'd change much
I'm a 20yo college student working retail to make extra money. Before I start of, I want to note that my country views college students who have a job, and full time workers, as separate. So you have just workers and "student workers".
I once briefly googled student worker unions in my area, so I know they're out there, but, because I'm so busy with school and work(mostly work cuz it's summer), I don't really have time to research the difference and how exactly it could benefit me.
And also, while I hate to say this as a fellow leftist, but, I don't really see how a union can help me. Like there's plenty of things that suck about my job, like, the fact that student workers are generally less respected in the work place than regular workers, or the fact they keep giving shitty hours, like closing the store one night, then opening the next morning. Like what exactly is a union going to do about that?
I hope people realize this isn't coming from a place of ignorance or maliciousness, but rather, well, just lacking time to really read up on it. I'd appreciate if anyone could lend me their thoughts on this.
https://redd.it/1m5v05n
@r_communism
VS Achuthanandan, India’s grand old Communist leader, passes away at 101
https://www.thenewsminute.com/kerala/vs-achuthanandan-keralas-grand-old-communist-leader-passes-away-at-101
https://redd.it/1m5o3f8
@r_communism
Interviews with the Communist Party of the Philippines
https://redd.it/1m5am2o
@r_communism
Bi-Weekly Discussion Thread - (July 20)
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 ]
https://redd.it/1m4avx2
@r_communism
Resources on homelessness in the US from Marxist scholars?
Homelessness in the US is such a multi-faceted issue, and I think it should be among the top priorities for Marxists living here.
The basic premise is simple: public government housing, yes? And that’s worked in the Soviet Union, China, and I’m sure every other Marxist country.
However, I feel we have a more deeply entrenched problem here due to the “War on Drugs,” (intentionally getting black and brown people hooked on drugs), incarceration, opioids, incomparably large unhoused populations, and a culture for not looking out for each other.
I live in an American city where the problem is famously bad. People are dying on the streets from ODing every day. Cops beat them down and worsen the issue. Affordable housing is being destroyed for empty “luxury” apartments.
Yet, the issue was famously worsened when Portland had the safe use spaces, no? Correct me if I’m wrong, but this doesn’t seem like the immediate solution to a country that’s this deep in it. I can’t imagine what could actually turn it around at this point.
I’d love to hear what scholars on the contemporary Marxist left are saying… any links are appreciated.
Please lead with empathy here and don’t take me to not be. These are real people who our government/society has failed and this question comes from a place of love, not to only see unhoused people as a “problem to solve,” so to speak.
https://redd.it/1m4tywc
@r_communism
Reddit’s UK users must now prove they’re 18 to view adult content
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/07/reddit-starts-verifying-ages-of-uk-users-to-comply-with-child-safety-law/
https://redd.it/1m45zp7
@r_communism
Why is the bombing of North Korea during the Korean War not considered a genocide?
https://redd.it/1m3rgkj
@r_communism
Indian opposition leader Rahul Gandhi equates Communism with right-wing Hindu nationalism, says "will fight both ideologies"
https://www.thenewsminute.com/kerala/rahul-gandhi-equates-cpim-with-rss-left-leaders-hit-back-sharply
https://redd.it/1m3werk
@r_communism
Czech Republic has criminalized communism with penalties of up to five years in prison
The Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia who has 499 elected officials across the country says this attack is politically motivated.
https://redd.it/1m3rors
@r_communism
Some personal confusions/questions on Michurinism
I've been studying to some degree Michurinism in light of recent discussions. Special thanks to u/Autrevml1936 for their reading list on their profile. I also found another text, I. E. Glushchenko's summary *THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF MICHURIN GENETICS*, to be useful as well.
I believe that Michurnism really is more scientific in its assertion that heredity means the unity of the organism with its environment, rather than some universal form/aspect of the organism agnostic to any environment/external conditions.
However, there are some fundamental questions/aspects which I cannot seem to get past. I've decided to post in r/com since this is somewhat of a continuation and advancement of discussions held on this subreddit before. I am tagging u/vomit_blues and u/Autrevml1936 who have shown a deep understanding of Michurinism (both the logical and historical), in hopes that I can pick their brains.
My first question is, from the standpoint of Michurinism does the gene exist or not? By "gene", I specifically mean, would Michurinism advocate for the idea that contiguous sequences of DNA in chromosomes that encode specific proteins or other metabolites, given current day empirical observations?
If Michurinism does not agree with any idea of a gene, what is the alternative theory it poses (or would pose)?
Second, Michurinism explicitly agrees with Lamarck's theory of acquired characteristics over the course of the organism's life, although it advances this theory by positing phasic development and the relative stability/instability of heredity (more or less unity with the environment) as the general conditions in which characteristics can be more, or less, acquired.
However, Michurinism has not advanced, as far as I understand, any explanation of the mechanism of the acquisition of characteristics from the perspective of biochemistry. To be clear, even if the acquisition of characteristics is primarily a biological phenomenon, it by no means eliminates the necessity of its appearance in the form of a series of interconnected biochemical phenomena. If the acquisition of characteristics over an organism's life is definite, then some concrete biochemical expression of this phenomenon must exist. So, what is it?
To me it seems that epigenetics is the strongest material explanation, since from even the little we understand of it, it can (in theory) already explain most if not all of the results observed from vernalization and uneven vegetative or sex hybridization (which were revealed by Lysenko and Michurin respectively).
But acceptance of epigenetics as the primary mode of acquired characteristics (and of phasic development and relative stability of heredity) is of course a kind of trap, since it implies that the ability to acquire characteristics over one's life is a relative and not absolute category of life--i.e., some organisms have more or less propensity to acquire characteristics (e.g. bacteria vs humans). And, because it is relative, the applicability of this method is also conditional.
Of course, the presence of epigenetics already refutes Weismannism-Morganism, specifically on their disagreement of acquired characteristics and their belief in immutably random mutagenesis. *However*, it does not refute mutagenesis in general being primary in evolution. It merely adds a very important caveat: that the epigenetics (i.e. metabolism) of the organism can (relatively!) to some extent control the rate/speed of mutation of different genes/DNA sequences in the chromosome, to a high level of specificity (for example, we could imagine that any genes which encode metabolic properties that are in struggle/antagonism with the environment become less stable over generations). Thus, although changes in genetic sequences are not *directed* in an intentional way, they are still mediated on the basis of some interaction/struggle with the environment.
Finally, I have related additional questions which I will post in a comment under this post because I feel they deserve their own
Confusing language used in the rules
The rules (Rule 1) and the subreddit description have unclear usage of the term Marxism, which leaves posts up to personal interpretation; For example, I am a Trotskyist, many people consider this to be divergent of Marxism-Leninism, but that's semantics, in technicality this implies Trotskyists may not post.
I'm sure this is not the intention of the rules, but it is a technicality which could either be used against someone in future, or could lead to exclusion of dialogue between schools of thought.
It's understandable this subreddit may for example not want extreme authoritarians, (or even extremely lenient liberals) which is a good reason for the language used, but in general I feel it alienates many people who are just in slightly different schools of thought. Looking at the rules there's also exclusionary language used; and language that may cause issues for some, even if it makes sense for Americans, British and other neocolonialist nations.
For example "no members of the police, armed forces or any other institution that serves capitalism..." I am not a member of any of these groups, however I am from a country where our armed forces are used exclusively for defense and are largely demobilised and very rarely utilized for anything besides aid to disadvantaged countries, and a police force which is unarmed to the point where their best weapon is pepper spray, and they act independently of the government.
One of my country's surprisingly popular parties is also Trotskyist, so if one of their members chose to partake in this subreddit, would they be banned for partaking in government in a capitalist country?
TL;DR: Members of communist parties cannot post under rule 1, neither can members of defense forces, or Guardians of the Peace (police, in my country) or Marxist-adjacent groups
https://redd.it/1m36yoy
@r_communism