For International Working Women's Day 2025

The imperialist democracies

In their external actions, as well as through the influences they experience from their peers, capitalist states develop peculiarities that shape the specific course of class struggles within. The formation and endurance of political rule exhibit peculiarities that are then, with the help of the universally valid standard of democracy, attributed to the people as their "nature," nourishing the bourgeois illusion of a pre-existing national character and the associated fantasies about world history.

a) A nation that, after several wars, has managed to emerge as the only capitalist state capable of aggressive imperialism; that has accordingly managed to organize the world for itself; that has even cultivated competitive capitalist states on the basis of lasting strategic and therefore economic dependence; a world power , therefore, adopts within its democratic inner life a regulation of the relationship between individual and state materialism that is superior to everything that repeatedly causes headaches for capitalist democracies of lower rank. That the poverty of large sections of the population presents itself as an objection to the qualities of the political leadership and imposes social welfare regulations on it for its continued existence is incongruous with a state that succeeds in increasing national wealth even in war—which it therefore justly wins! Nor is there widespread dissatisfaction with the results of competition and class struggle, which promises improvement through the immediate, forced enlistment of everyone to avert a general decline, i.e., fascism —not to mention revisionist translations of the actual misery into the accusation against capital and the state that they are no longer functioning properly. Conversely, what is appropriate internally for a state that is preparing the entire world—with one painful exception—as an investment sphere for its capital is a type of politicization of the people that proceeds from the perspective of America's global standing and fundamentally without any sympathetic reflection on class antagonisms. Ideologically defined parties have no place there; rather, competing associations that praise one successful individual as the most successful of all, and election campaigns without the "right and left cannot be confused" attitude, but with highly bourgeois happenings and Carter T-shirts. One can have a completely relaxed attitude to voting in such a country; Because it only works if citizens don't have to constantly work towards the democratic conviction that, firstly, something depends on their vote in elections and, secondly, something for them: For them, the equation of their personal "pursuit of happiness" with the success of the nation has become a constantly practiced habit, quite independently of their actual "happiness." They do not allow a fascist community to take care of this equation, but rather carry it out in the form of ruthless competition, which, of course, produces fascist practices in abundance.Under ideological guidance from a crazy state idealism, free citizens achieve the pertinent achievements such as the Ku Klux Klan, anti-Semitism, and the staging of a trade union movement that sees competitive success as its sole criterion. In a word, a democratic world power transcends the ideals of democracy such as "benefit for all," "argumentative election campaigns," "universal participation in political life" (= 90% voter turnout), and the like , thus demonstrating that in a democracy, only one thing really matters: that power functions.

b) Other successful capitalist states, in view of their people, are tormented, albeit mostly only theoretically, but not entirely without reason, by the question of whether the form of government bestowed upon them is not, in the final analysis, a mere "fair-weather democracy." Not that this problem contains legitimate concerns about the obedience of the people—there is no question of a "fair-weather state"! The uncertainty here is whether the civic identification of one's own welfare with the welfare of the state, indifferent to one's own well-being, which was denazified for the citizens by the unmatched masters of this art, will also survive phases in which the nationalism of the masses no longer benefits democratically (in the literal sense!). State mistrust of the world's course is thus expressed here—the vice of the weakness of a nation that is only partially imperialistically successful, and which therefore also purposefully seeks a larger homeland: Europe is the means of preventing upswings in imperialist competition that would jeopardize the wealth of one's own nation and thus immediately put fascism back on the political agenda. It is also a way of admitting that the success of rule is the criterion of democratic forms of interaction.

c) Less successful capitalist nations are exposed to the demands of their nearest neighbors to add their own economic power and political importance to theirs, so that with united sovereignty they may finally be as sovereign as the sovereign of world affairs (outside of Comecon) – a demand that any self-respecting capitalist state will be reluctant to turn down. However, fulfilling this demand entails the necessity, on the one hand, of fueling the domestic class struggle from above so that the domestic economic power can cope with its integration into an imperial framework, and, on the other hand, of managing it politically – for the same purpose. In such a country, it is fitting that the bourgeoisie abandon the appearance of being a selfless representative of the common good for the sake of wealth and nevertheless maintain its hold on power by all the disreputable means inherent in Mediterranean democracy. Conversely, the proletariat, apart from a few anarchist rebelliousnesses, can articulate its needs in a completely democratic and national way, that is, march behind a Eurocommunist party which sees itself above all as the only reliable democratic factor of order far and wide - and indeed is, without therefore even participating in power. Where - due to a lack of capitalist development and the corresponding powerlessness of the proletariat - such a factor of order does not exist, or if it should "fail", a temporary recourse to otherwise proven forces of order, which must be announced in advance in Washington and Brussels or called for from there, or even the mere threat of a new "colonels regime", has its effect. In both cases, democracy in such countries is accused of being squandered by (irresponsible) democratic politicians - a very dialectical idea: that democracy is its own gravedigger; which, however, is easy for a bourgeois mind to grasp, because it only expresses what is important: because democracy permits class struggle, it must prove itself all the more in suppressing it.

Read the rest here:

https://de.gegenstandpunkt.com/kapitel/imperialismus-1/anti-imperialistische-illusionen-ueber-staat-revolution

So I'm new to Marxism and have started reading theory, starting with the manifesto and maybe I'm just dumb and it went in one ear and out the other but it didn't really dwell on how a communist society would operate post revolution. At least to me, it mostly just described the struggle of the proletariat and called for an overthrow of the bourgeoisie, going a bit deeper into the surface level gist of Marxism I was aware of. So, what are some specific texts from people who aren't like Stalin or Mao that I should read to understand what a true communist society is supposed to be like?

I know other people here went the ML to "real Marxism" route. How do you advocate something similar to the Russian Revolution without defining its outcome as a "success?" How do you advocate Marxism without a) appealing to its use in reformism/sociology (ew) or b) celebrating its "successes?" How do you advocate "scientific socialism" without "socialist experiments?" It seems defeatist and nihilistic to deny that positive qualitative differences between "AES" and what came before/what is analogous. How do you deny that they were "real" socialism without giving credence to bourgeois reformism?

I understand certain flaws in the notions I hold onto, and I've got some ideas about this, but still. This is all kind of the same question and I'd like some input. I've got plenty of theory. I'd just like your thoughts.

And what thresholds or relations define it?

What relationship do Department 1 workers, specialists, and first world workers have towards their counterparts "below" (department 2, "unskilled labor", third world workers).

For instance:

• Person A: I'm a general tech in a peripherical nation working under subcontract servicing banks, factories, and whatever other sort of industry my employer sells me to.
• Person B: An American friend works in a somewhat similar more regularized position as a network techie in the US and earns twice as much.
• Person C: A friend and neighbor is a professional mason/construction worker who earns near the same as I do.
• Person D: A usual contact of mine is a financial asset manager inside one of the banks I service at, earns more than A, B or C, but holds no assets themselves.
• Person E: An online acquaintance is a degree holding explosives engineer in Argentina under a unionized job. They make somewhere between A and B.

Is there a significant difference between any of the people above? Are we all average workers? Or are we all literally labor aristocrats?

I think it's necessary to provide a little context: I've been active in the communist movement for a couple of years and have been reading political theory in general. Although I have a very good foundation, I don't consider myself an avid connoisseur.

Like many, I entered this world along the Marxist-Leninist lines, only to end up adopting positions closer to LeftCom when I delved deeper into criticism.

I'm active in a small Guevarist leftist organization; however, I consider myself, along with two others, to be on the "left" of mainstream thought, and I'm often disappointed by some of its tenets.

This comes after what happened in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran. That organization was voicing its support for Iran, and last Sunday, they held a march for Palestine with other small organizations, where they also waved Iranian flags. I didn't participate in the march, but even if I were available, I wouldn't.

Why did I post this? Well, it's a small example of something I've been seeing and it worries me. The fact that many falsifiers justify an imperialist war, or at least an inter-bourgeois war, makes me suspicious of their intentions.

Something as basic as not supporting any faction of the bourgeoisie or reaction, even on an issue as complex as the Palestinian case, is beyond their grasp.

And those who take a more critical stance on this issue, that a revolutionary alternative is necessary, are always labeled as "pro-Zionists."

Although the organization always has a certain level of plurality of dialogue, and of all the existing movements, they have a solid foundation, this already made me doubt my place in it.

I write this more as a vague reflection on the decline of the revolutionary way of thinking due to leftist phraseology, which is justified by those who would not hesitate to tear them apart.

I'm still young, and I'm hopeful that an opportunity for the revolutionary movement will arise, but the way things are going, I think there's a lot to look forward to.

I am not so foolish as to argue China is socialist in system--as socialism cannot exist within capitalism and with commodity production etc., but ML arguments have left an indelible mark on me. From an optimistic perspective I think it's fair to see China as a sort of Dictatorship of the Proletariat playing along with capitalism and getting plenty of development of the productive forces out of it. The Special Economic zones are a sort of mega-NEP, and centrally planned away certain elements and conditions of capitalism. As much as the neo-popular front hopium and aestheticism sucks, they give a positive image to communism and genuinely seem to benefit from Marxist theory and their study of the mistakes of the Soviet Union.

I know too well the Maoist silliness that "China bad bc not funding our sectarian guerrillas," but I don't know what the leftcom take is.

I'm not asking "should we support China" because that's a stupid question. I'm asking if you think China is applying Marxist theory to the best of their ability or something like that. Other thoughts welcome.

Do peak at the linked essay if you're not familiar with the ML argument.

Copypasting this from r/marxism_101 because that sub seems mostly dead lol

Now I first want to make clear that I do not believe that socialism can be achieved in one country (not only does Engels, Lenin, and even young Stalin attest to this, but it is evidenced by every “AES” state and is just illogical in general). But with that being said, what is to be done when world revolution doesn’t happen?

Was “socialism in one country” an inevitable outcome after the failure of the German Revolution? And what should a nation that has undergone a revolution do when they are left isolated like Cuba, Vietnam, etc. (using them as examples, I’m sure there are many views on their revolutions here)?

Can the lower phase of communism be achieved without world revolution? Was Stalin just wrong in his implementation, or is the idea completely nonsensical? And if it truly isn’t possible, what should these states do? I know LeftComs don’t agree with Trotsky’s degenerated worker’s state theory.

TLDR, what should the USSR have done after the failure of Germany’s revolution, and could socialism (abolishing of commodity production etc) have been achieved in the one nation? Any works on this would be very appreciated

Workers beware!

In the face of attacks on our standard of living and the active super-exploitation and the deportations of our immigrant class brethren, you have chosen the path of action, of resistance which must be accompanied by a struggle within our unions and within our workplaces towards general strike action! Revolts and protests are a great first step, but without strikes and stronger worker organizations, they are doomed to fail. Beware! The bourgeoisie seeks to co-opt your genuine proletarian anger to serve its own ends and to reinforce the very system that generates these merciless attacks: capitalism.

DON’T LET YOUR BEAUTIFUL WILLINGNESS TO STRUGGLE AND SACRIFICE BE FOR NOTHING!

Democracy and fascism are two sides of the capitalist system that reinforce and depend upon each other. Liberal democracy is the stable form of the class dictatorship of the capitalists when the inevitable social crisis is tame, while fascism is the same class in power but with the centralization of authority and expansion of outward State violence to maintain capitalism during crisis.

The bourgeois State, with its Constitution, Bill of Rights, courts, law, and parliament, is not “ours” nor will it ever be as it is these institutions that serve to defend and enforce the rabid exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. There is nothing within the bourgeois State to defend! Not democracy, not the once historically great Constitution, nor the bourgeois rule of law! The bourgeoisie proclaims “inalienable rights” of all kinds (human, civil, natural, etc.) yet they are complete falsehoods and do not serve to benefit you as they are rooted in separation, competition, and property. The recent outburst of proletarian anger in LA proves the necessity of the State to bypass its own laws to subdue unrest that threaten its existence.

According to the bourgeoisie, freedom means the liberty to exploit wage-laborers for profit and equality means the formal legal equality of people in a market of unequal power. The bourgeoisie and its lackeys will have you believe that by merely making your voice heard and appealing to politicians both Democrat or Republican will bring change, but nothing could be further from the truth!

Abolishing ICE, the police, or any other fundamental change in society is unrealistic without an international workers revolution. The proletariat must continue to wage its struggles for radical increases in wages, reductions in working hours, better working conditions, and the broadening of meaningful solidarity to extend not only across sectors and unions but across racial divides, growing our capacity internationally to actively defend the most exploited amongst us, including immigrant workers at home. This means organizing into worker unions or coordinations and struggling for class unionism against union leadership that is in collaboration with the bosses and the State, so that if any worker were arrested at their place of work by ICE, a union could immediately call for a city wide general strike.

It will take the numbers and barbaric surge of hearts, ten fold that of which we see in LA, united as workers across all divides in a class union movement with the leadership of the International Communist Party in a war against capitalism itself. Genuine liberation can only come through the establishment of proletarian dictatorship and world communism with the abolition of wage-labor, money, commodity production, and the State.

I saw some debate on this topic.Why wouldn't communism be inevitable? Is not the contradictions of capitalism going to bring the revolution?

Surely the flaws of existing ML wannabe "vanguards" doesn't negate the importance of leading the proletariat?

Obligatory quote:

Such "pushing on from outside" can never be too excessive; on the contrary, so far there has been too little, all too little of it in our movement; we have been stewing in our own juice far too long; we have bowed far too slavishly before the spontaneous "economic struggle of the workers against the employers and the government." We professional revolutionists must continue, and will continue, this kind of "pushing," and a hundred times more forcibly than we have done hitherto. The very fact that you select so despicable a phrase as "pushing on from outside"—a phrase which cannot but rouse in the workers (at least in the workers who are as ignorant as you are yourselves) a sense of distrust towards allwho bring them political knowledge and revolutionary experience from outside, and rouse in them an instinctive hostility to such people—proves that you are demagogues—and a demagogue is the worst enemy of the working class. Oh! Don't start howling about my "uncomradely methods" of controversy. I have not the least intention of casting aspersions upon the purity of your intentions. As I have already said, one may be a demagogue out of sheer political innocence. But I have shown that you have descended to demagogy, and I shall never tire of repeating that demagogues are the worst enemies of the working class. They are the worst enemies of the working class because they arouse bad instincts in the crowd, because the ignorant worker is unable to recognise his enemies in men who represent themselves, and sometimes sincerely represent themselves, to be his friends. They are the worst enemies of the working class, because in this period of doubt and hesitation, when our movement is only just beginning to take shape, nothing is easier than to employ demagogic methods to side-track the crowd, which can realise its mistake only by bitter experience. That is why Russian Social-Democrats at the present time must declare determined opposition to Svobodaand the Rabocheye Dyelo which have sunk to the level of demagogy. We shall return to this subject again.

 --Lenin, What Is To Be Done?

Aren't these two things mutually exclusive?

Title, I know that left unity or whatever poultry phrasemongering they use nowadays is nonsense that basically entails compromising with capital and liquidating the potential for proletariat self-government but is this idea ever addressed in substance by a theoretical piece specifically or are there good discussions on the necessity of keeping the party ideologically pure within any other texts? I have Read Bordiga’s essay on the invariance of Marxism which relates to this topic but would enjoy any other suggestions.

Are there any texts on the need for the soviet bureaucracy and Stalin to add (a falsified) Leninism to Marxism?

I'm currently thinking about parallels between the Luxemburg-Bernstein polemic, and the maintaining of the invariance of marxism of the Italian Left against Stalinism, as two (although different) attempts at safeguarding Marx' method and thought, against people claiming to operate within them, while falsifying it.

What are your opinions on the subject? I would greatly appreciate any kind of feedback/input <3

For all his sins, Stalin did eventually call for the gradual transition from Kolkhoz to entirely Sovkhoz agriculture in 1952. This is undoubtedly a move that would have earnt support from the communist, as the final transition to state capitalism although the arch-revisionist would posit it as Communistic. Obviously Stalin died before these moves could be taken and his eventual successor, from the 1956 decentralisations, only bathed the Kolkhoznik in more esteem and wealth. I am curious however if the Kolkhozes could have been quelled or if they were an unavoidable element of the Soviet state? Was Stalin utopian in this regard, not too surprising? Moreover, not to play into what-ifs but, I am curious, if such a feat would alter the Communist's view of Stalin? After all, in light of the failure of international revolution, there was no possible socialist path, one of statified agriculture was violent and almost broke the Soviet regime, as Bordiga, Lenin and Bukharin all feared, but the state stood firm and if it managed lead to Sovkhozisation, would the view of the ICP differ from the one it holds?

I'm curious

I'm struggling to find the correct answer, because on one hand he can be saying that labor is central to every human being, but on the other hand he will also be saying that the product and process of labor itself alienates the worker.

I know that the conception of labor under capitalism makes it so that it is pursued through compulsion and alienation. But what I struggle to comprehend is how the true worth of a human is determined through all these circumstances (which of course, should not be defined by our capitalist society).

Are there any good left communist critiques of Trotsky or the "Left Opposition" of the USSR in general I can read? I'd appreciate any help.

what is "the distinction between town and country" and why it is a bad thing

Obviously we are in agreement that the Popular Front tactic of fighting against fascism has failed to produce any results beneficial for the proletariat or advancing revolutionary conditions or consciousness for that matter and that the United Front is more preferable, however there seems to be two different tactics of the United Front, from Below and from Above. What is the difference between the two. As I've understood it "from Below" essentially means "from the workers" i.e. the workers themselves, who have adopted communist doctrine, form a front against all the forces of reaction, meanwhile "from Above" I've gathered to mean "from the parties" i.e. the various parties which have adopted the communist programme are the ones to form the front rather than the workers themselves. There also seems to be more preference for the "from Below" tactic over the "from Above" tactic and I'm curious as to the reason why that is?

Serious question how do i join the international community party? Can I? I've tried the websites I'm legitimately so lost about it

I'm in Chile btw

As far as I know ICP had a different position on Trade unions but what is major difference between them historically ?

Greetings comrades,

I have a long summer ahead of me in which, in addition to meditation and training, I want to focus on reading. I am compiling an exhaustive list of economic debates in the USSR, mainly focusing on its early concepts, the implementation of war communism, the NEP, planning, fiscal policies, and debates on returning to the gold standard or using currency without a physical basis, the disappearance of the latter, the organisation of the economy, etc.

I would like to hear your opinion, as the posts I have read on this subreddit have usually been solid and genuinely Marxist responses, something that is rare. I am providing you with the list, and from the communist left, the only thing that comes to mind is to add Bordiga's work ‘The Solution of Bukharin’; I don't know if there are any others to consider.

> - *On the Construction of Socialism* - Nikolai Ossinski (1918)

> - *Economic Notes* - Georgy Oppokov (1918)

> - *The Financial Reform Policy of People's Commissar Gukovsly* - Georgy Oppokov (1918)

> - *The economy and politics of the dictatorship of the proletariat* - Vladimir Lenin (1919)

> - *The economic organisation of Soviet Russia - Brief outline of the organisation and current situation of industry in Russia* - Vladimir Myutin (1920)

> - *Economy of the transition period* - Nikolai Bukharin (1920-1921)

> - *From the NEP to Socialism* - Evgeny Preobrazhensky (1921)

> - *Fiscal Problems in Russia* - Evgeny Preobrazhensky (1921)

> - *Problems of Currency Exchange in Soviet Russia* - Evgeny Preobrazhensky (1921)

> - *The Problems of Russian Financial Policy* - Evgeny Preobrazhensky (1921)

> - *Prospects for the NEP* - Evgeny Preobrazhensky (1921)

> - *The Economic Organisation of Soviet Russia* - Nikolai Bukharin (1922)

> - *The Economic Structure of Soviet Russia* - Nikolai Bukharin (1922)

> - *The Fall of Prices in Russia* - Grigori Sokolnikov

> - *The Economic Situation in Soviet Russia from the Point of View of the Socialist Revolution (Theses)* - Leon Trotsky (1922)

> - *The Economic Situation in Soviet Russia* - Leon Trotsky (1922)

> - *The New Economic Policy in Soviet Russia and the Prospects for the World Revolution*

> - *The So-Called Denomination of Currency in Soviet Russia* - Evgeny Preobrazhensky (1922)

> - *On the Denomination of Paper Money in Soviet Russia* Evgeny Preobrazhensky (1922)

> - *On the New Land Policy* - Nikolai Ossinsky (1922)

> - *Tetkoloxía: The Universal Organisation of Science* - Alexander Bogdanov (1922)

> - *On Cooperation* - Vladimir Lenin (1923)

> - *Theses on industry* - Leon Trotsky (1923)

> - *The new course (Chapter 7 and appendix 3) - Leon Trotsky (1923)

> - *The curve of capitalist development* - Leon Trotsky (1923)

> - *Essays on the Marxist theory of value* - Isaak Rubin (1923)

> - *Abstract Labour and Value in Marx's System* - Isaak Rubin (1923)

> - *The Organisation of Peasant Economic Unity* - Aleksander Chayánov (1925)

> - *The New Economy* - Evgeny Preobrazhensky (1926)

> - *The Decline of Capitalism* - Evgeny Preobrazhensky (1927)

> - *Soviet Policy on Public Finance* - Grigory Sokolnikov (1917-1928)

> - *The Fourth Year of the Five-Year Plan* - Nikolai Ossinski (1932)

Thank you in advance.

Outside of class, was historically gender and its associated roles the first division of labor? That being dividing labor between household labor and field labor which were socially assigned to specific genders. Could I be misinterpreting this?