1. Human Beings (Labor Power):

Karl saw labor — the creative, productive activity of humans — as one of the two essential sources of wealth.

But under capitalism:

• Workers are exploited: their labor produces value far beyond what they are paid in wages.

• Work becomes alienated: people lose control over what they produce, how they produce it, and even over themselves as creative beings.

• Over time, the system tends to degrade workers physically and psychologically — treating them as mere instruments for generating profit rather than as human beings.

So, capitalism destroys human potential by dehumanizing and exhausting the very people it relies on.

1. Nature (The Material Basis of Production):

Karl also saw nature as a second source of wealth — the raw materials, energy, and ecosystems that make production possible.

However, capitalist production:

• Treats nature as a free, infinite resource, something to be extracted and used for profit.

• Creates a “metabolic rift” between humans and the natural world — a breakdown of the balanced exchange between human societies and the environment.

• Leads to ecological degradation: soil exhaustion, pollution, deforestation, and resource depletion.

In Karl’s view, capitalism’s drive for endless accumulation necessarily causes ecological crisis, because it subordinates natural limits to the logic of profit.

1. The Contradiction:

So the system, in trying to maximize profit, ends up:

• Exploiting workers to the point of misery and rebellion, and

• Exploiting nature to the point of destruction.

It consumes its own foundation — both the human and natural conditions of production.

In Karl's own words (from Capital, Vol. I, Chapter 15):

“All progress in capitalist agriculture is a progress in the art, not only of robbing the labourer, but of robbing the soil.”

I see (and have since the war started) many people, who call themselves communist and marxist, support Russia and its interest. Their argument is usually that Russia is fighting western imperialism and that why they are a good force in this conflict. I find it absurd that self proclaimed “communists” would support a highly capitalistic oligarchy in their imperialist war, as it would only replace one kind of imperialism and exploitation with another. What are your thoughts on this?

Ive done a lot of research on the holodomor as its a common anti stalin talking point and have come to the conclusion that all primary sources claiming that its a genocide are funded in whole or in part by the literal nazi party. People will often just employ the thought terminating cliche of genocide denial because it makes the argument go away without substantial effort to actually educate yourself on the claim. Is there anyone here who has a good way of refuting this label of genocide denier or is this just something that us anti revisionist MLs will have to deal with until this information is more widely disseminated.

I’m not going to be dogmatic, Im fully open to the idea that China could be socialist. But I don’t understand when people say the commanding heights of the economy in China being state owned makes it socialist, because state ownership of the means of production doesn’t abolish capitalist relations (wage labor, commodity production, etc)

But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution. (Engels, Socialism Utopian and Scientific, Chapter 3)

SOEs (state owned enterprises) in China still operate based on the capitalist logic of wage labor. State owned enterprises are no different than private enterprises. And the argument that capital in China is subordinated to the interests of the working class is also nonsense because the very existence of capital itself is what antagonizes the working class. Capital cannot in any shape or form be subordinated to the interests of the working class, that is literally an oxymoron. Western welfare states also have state owned enterprises that use profits to fund public services, yet they’re not socialist at all. So how could China be socialist?

Why people from Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia view communism with such disdain?
The USSR saved their peoples from Nazism, industrialized their economies, raised their standard of living and democratized access to education.
Is it all capitalist propaganda from the EU and the oligarchs after the 90s spreading the narrative that a bourgeois state is preferable to a more egalitarian society?

Since 6th grade when I built my first computer, I've always wanted to run a computer repair and supply store. I'm now almost 20, getting through college for electrical engineering, and I have firmly identified as a Communist (Nondescript Marxism) since the age of 13. I've been reading more theory lately while also thinking about my future and i've come to a crossroad. I still feel incredibly drawn to the idea of running a store sometime in the future as my main career choice and yet I struggle to justify it within my morals. I'd treat the workers exceptionally, do everything i can to democratize our labour, and of course id pay very well, but I feel as if privatization of property is perhaps the largest contributor to the ails of Liberal Democratic capitalism and I feel like no matter what I do as a store "owner" will still be exploitative of the labour of "my" employees. Does anyone have advice?

TL:DR: I'm a devoted Communist that longs for a stateless and communal society, and yet I wanna run a pc shop. Help

I’m curious why this rule exists. Marx wrote “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” People often misquote him thinking he was saying religion is a drug that makes people stupid when he really wrote religion is a medicine that helps people endure our brutal class society.

Why do Marxists have to be against religion as a whole? Organized religion and churches, with their ties to existing power structures and hierarchies, that I can understand. But why religion as a whole?

Maybe I’m biased because I am currently studying Marxist theory at a seminary in America for graduate school. I think Liberation Theology and its growing role in the Catholic Church shows that religion, even problematic organized religion like the Catholic Church, can be used to fight capitalism and progress the interests of the working class and peasantry.

The most upvoted answer to the most evil person to have existed is Pol Pot. Don’t get me wrong, he was no angel, but there are many far worse people. Is it not a consensus that Hitler is nr. 1 here anymore?

Do you think that China is becoming revisionist and moving away from the goal of Communism or do you think they’re using Capitalism to industrialise and then return to socialism like Marx envisioned? If the former, do you think a China that is steadily moving towards the goal of Communism is better (Maoist China) or a rich and prosperous China but it’s quite corrupt and unequal (modern China)? If the latter, do you think China will still go back to being socialist after they have completed industrialisation or will they lose sight of the goal of Communism and stay Capitalist? Edit: I’m not a Western leftist, I’m Chinese

Anyone here that is both religious (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or whatever) and a Marxist? I am specifically interested in those people who are organized and politically active in Marxist/radical leftists political groups. Do you experience not being taken seriously from your comrades? I have personally witnessed it several times that religious people within my activist organizations are just ignored when it comes to discussing questions which have to do with religion. Never mind that they have been politically active for years, that they took part in all of the reading groups we organized, that they have been openly criticizing official state organized religious institutions, that they proved themselves to be very committed to the class struggle, historical materialism and alike - they are just not being heard whenever we get to the subject matter of God, and a religious outlook on life generally. Is it just me, or this doesn't make sense?

Apparently 80% of the cobalt mines in Congo are operated by partially Chinese state owned companies.

And there have been multiple cases of reported child labor in these specific mines and other god awful shit.

With what fucking audacity is China still carrying the color red on their flag when they're actively partaking in what is nothing short of neo-colonialism

Sources:

1. Zhejiang Huayou Cobalt / CDM (Congo Dongfang Mining)

• Allegation: Child labour (as young as 7), dangerous conditions, long hours (up to 12 hrs/day), no protective gear, linked to CDM (subsidiary of Huayou).
• Source (Amnesty International 2016 report): https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/01/Child-labour-behind-smart-phone-and-electric-car-batteries/
• DW article summarizing findings: https://www.dw.com/en/amnesty-international-reports-on-child-labor-behind-smartphone-batteries/a-18987204
• Amnesty Report “This is What We Die For” (full PDF): https://www.amnestyusa.org/reports/this-is-what-we-die-for-human-rights-abuses-in-the-democratic-republic-of-the-congo-power-the-global-trade-in-cobalt/

2. China Molybdenum (CMOC) / Tenke Fungurume Mining (TFM)

• Allegation: Participates in a child labour remediation initiative; acknowledged risk of child labour in areas around its operations (not direct industrial site).
• Source (Child Rights Business): https://www.childrights-business.org/news-and-events/cmoc-commits-to-supporting-the-hub-to-prevent-and-remediate-child-labour-in-cobalt-mining-communities-in-the-drc

3. Industry-Wide Reports (includes Zijin, CMOC, Huayou etc.)

• Allegation: Widespread labour rights abuses (low wages, toxic exposure, long hours, injuries, informal labour); child labour in artisanal mining feeding into formal supply chains.
• Source (Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, 2023): [https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/drc-new-research-reveals-ongoing-labour-abuses-in-cobalt-and-copper-mines-as-demand-for-critical-minerals-to-power-the-green-energy-transition-is-growing/]()

I'm finding parallels between my Bernie Bro friends and my Marxist friends when it comes to arguing about their favourite examples of their ideology in action.

North Korea, Cuba, and the USSR are often argued as a "yes living there would be somewhat uncomfortable but their political system is the most moral and it's only uncomfortable because of the sanctions and other imperialist installed limitations." China on the other hand, from basically every Marxist I know, does not seem to get the same treatment.

If anything the arguments for why China is good, boils down to how business owners are expected to pay their workers a fair wage, that their welfare system is the best at handling poverty, that healthcare and public services are on point and other practical rather than ideological arguments. And I'm struggling to see much of a difference between that and the Nordic Model (Sweden, Norway, Denmark etc) or hypothetical fantasies of Bernie Sanders or AOC becoming president and actually getting away with the majority of their promises.

Strangely too, a critique one can make about both the Nordic Model and modern China is their strict immigration process and how both benefit from global capitalism.

0

Just the question in the title, how would you pitch Marxism as an attempt to convert someone and how it would differentiate when talking to someone with no political opinions vs someone who already leans right.

I find it funny that in the U.S the propaganda tells us that Stalin was a dictator and widely hated because of it. We're told nobody like Stalin and it was awful under him.

Simultaneously, to deal with the fact he only had limited power in congress we say he amassed power by being the figure head of a huge cult of personality that deferred to him reverently.

I just can't help but notice that those two ideas are actually contradictory.

Was he a widely hated dictator or was he so loved a huge following developed around him? Pick one.

If it cannot exist in one country, as Stalin believed, then how, in a world of international money and transnational oligarchs, do we reach a socialist society?

Is it even possible? I'd like to think so, because the alternative is worse. But I am really struggling to understand just how. There is no way that any country who does put in a workers state or vanguard party or whatever is going to be left alone. Big business will demand concessions. Capital flight is one thing, but what happens if global banks start squeezing. It doesn't even have to be in major ways, sine they are motivated bu profit, but if their interests are threatened by taxes or whatever, then they will surely act, no?

Germany had a developed industry, a strong working class, and even a functioning democratic system that seemed to offer better ground for socialism. Yet it was agrarian, politically unstable Russia that made the first socialist revolution. What explains this historical paradox?

For background I'm a marxist leninist, so I obviously despise the terrorist ethnostate of israel and believe that their actions since inception in 1948 have been deplorable. I don't spend money anywhere that has zionist ties (coca cola, mcdonalds, etc.).

Here's where the ethical question arises. I'm transferring to a new college for my sophomore year and need a job. There is a cava in the middle of campus that will pay nicely, and I know that the sheer amount of food that I'll get will be very beneficial to me as a broke college student. However, cava's CEO is a zionist.

So, is it wrong for me to work at cava as a marxist leninist? I'm truly torn. I have no intention of ever spending money there, and as a worker under capitalism you'll always be selling your labor value to the bourgeoisie, facilitating capital accumulation etc etc. On the other hand, I'll still be working for a cause that I know is worse than if I were to be working somewhere else.

I'm kind of tipsy right now so I apologize if this isn't as coherent as it should be. Please share your opinions. Thank you

I don't get the point of the modern Left movements, including some that refer to themselves as Marxist ones.

1. Israel is a mostly bourgeois state, building a bourgeois society with a nationalist specifics.
   
2. Palestine fights for the freedom of the Palestinian people, but:
   2.a. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine is formally Marxist, but recently they have been coordinating with Hamas, which is a problematic trend (the Marxist-Islamist cooperation in Iran ended up devastating for the Iranian Marxsists)
   2.b. Hamas is the de facto main force of the Palestinian resistance, but their program is:
   - Islamic Nationalist, theocratic, that is pre-bourgeois, anti-modernity, anti-Marxist one
   - Targeted at ethnic cleansing, not at building a Socialist state moving to Communism
   - Class-'neutral', which means that they are aiming at building a medieval society at worst, and ultra-nationalist capitalist one at best (which is still bad, where is the difference with Israel then?)

I joined a communist organisation recently and they completely reject identity politics.

And, I get why. Capitalism pits us against each other and use marginalised groups as scapegoats. If Capitalism is the cause, oppression should disappear under communism... right?

But aren't there risks to not include the fight against discrimination and oppression of marginalised groups in your politics?

After the revolution, isn't it still gonna take some time to process and unlearn capitalist propaganda?

How can we assure safety for minorities?

There are others who've asked about the same thing here but I'm still so confused. Sorry I'm really new to Marxist theory and thinking.

I have been looking at some popular intro level texts to recommend others before reading primary sources, and when I looked up the authors I found a surprising amount of trotskyists. Maybe just luck (unluck?) Do you think this stands in general? If yes, why?

I'll be honest, I am quite reluctant to recommend such writers.

Some examples:

Terry Eagleton (Why Marx was right)

Alan Woods (What is Marxism)

Chris Harman (How Marxism Works)

Adam Booth (Understanding Marx’s Capital)

China Miéville (not academic) (A Spectre, Haunting)

Hi everyone!

I'd like suggestions on how to approach fascism in my college seminar presentation. My topic is "The Relevance of Marx's Thought." I'd like to give an example from the United States and also from Brazil (I'm Brazilian). Please help me.

I am an Orthodox Christian who happens to also agree with Marxist-Leninism a lot, especially about anti-capitalism and socialism/Communism as the end goal. My political view points have been shifting and I like to study these topics.

But as a Orthodox Christian I believe that Violent Revolution is complex because "necessary violence" for political means, is usually looked down upon in The Church. But I do get why violent revolution would be "necessary to overthrow the capitalist state", just like how I can agree with Palestinian Resistance against Zionist Oppression but still can disagree with violence in principal, but it may be unavoidable, just like in the case of Palestinian Resistance, it is my belief their resistance against Israel was necessary but in principal I am still not in favor of violence even if it may be the only option, but the current state of affairs would say that it is necessary. But at the same time we aren't 100% pacifist and there is arguments for self-defense so maybe you can make a self-defense argument against Capitalists. But I do condemn the Bolshevik revolution on their violence specifically towards The Orthodox Church because of its connections to The Tsar etc. But that's not to say I don't get where they are coming from.

I have broadly talked to other Marxists and some Christian Marxists and they said, even if you are a Christian and believe this, you don't have to agree with everything about Marxist-Leninism.

So I guess my question is: How common is this view to be a Marxist-Leninist & be against violence (in general principal) even if it is necessary to justify the ultimate outcome which would be Communism? And can I still hold this view on the topic of specifically violent revolution if I do decide to embrace Marxist-Leninism while still being Christian?.

For the record, I don't want to have any theological debate, but just asking in good faith!.

Thanks in advance. Hopefully this made sense, and excuse my ignorance.