I just saw this and it's not directly about socialism, but I feel like most of us look at these people as great examples of why capitalism sucks because they are extensions of corporations.

- Biography of Bhagat Singh

So for context, I am a communist and very ML leaning and I even have some Maoist tendencies but recently I heard some criticisms coming from anarchists. And while I still do think that the state is unfortu necessary to build socialism in a global capitalist system there were some points that I couldn’t counter and that actually seemed valid.

The main one (which is in the title of the post) is:

In what way did the proletariat rule the USSR?
(Or other ML states like Mao‘s china, Cuba etc…)

I heard about the Soviets, or workers councils but I’ve also heard they didn’t really have any power and that their role was mostly symbolic. Then theres the Chinese people’s communes which I don’t really understand I they worked yet.

I’ve also heard people say that the party represents the proletariat, which like… in what way? Is it just because it’s a communist party? In which case I think that argument is pretty stupid cause anyone can call themselves a communist and claim to work in the interest of the workers, nothing actually guarantees that they do and even if there was, the proletariat still wouldn’t really be in control of the state.

To put it simply: in capitalism, the bourgeoisie controls the state through, essentially, owning the means of production. But in socialism, the state owns the means of production, not the workers directly, so they don’t control the state, instead the state controls them (since they own the means of production.

Now this isn’t me trying to give you a kinda gotcha argument against Marxism-Leninism, in fact it’s just that I was presented with this argument and I wanted to ask if there was an answer to it. Is there a mechanism that ensures the workes control of the state? Is there something to prevent the state from controlling workers?

Some other arguments were for example the continuation of commodity production under socialism which in my opinion is valid. Like I thought that was the one thing socialism was fighting (or at least one of the main things)

We may put effort into discussion and while many polemics are fruitless, this is a necessary form of intellectual exchange between Socialists.

However, what about agitation? I've seen that my post was recently removed, it was a meme about Eastern European elders and their support for Communism.

At first sight, memes are just jokes and no part of serious discussion.

But are they?

Bolsheviks used agit trains to spread material all across USSR they even had theatre wagons.

Today I got aound 300k views on agitprop memes.

So why delete free agitation material? How many leaflets would you need to distribute in 20th century to have as much exposure?

Don't discredit leftist memes, afterall, agitation is important, nobody just woke up with no political views one day and opened Marxists.org to read Das Kapital and become Marxist.

Let them breathe, repost, don't shoot our own media in the foot.

Hello Comrades!

My political party holds a political event in the last weekend of october, which means it lands on Halloween. So naturally i dress up (even though nobody else does). Last year i went as 'the last Capitalist' inspired by the Karl Marx quote: "The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope." So i wore a suit, a (safe) noose around my neck and i held a sign saying 'buy ropes' that had ropes attached to it. This year i'm also looking to dress up, but i want it to be original and not just dressing up as a ghost and saying your 'the spectre of communism'. If anybody has any fun ideas i would appreciate it⭐️

Are clothes lacking design, originality and craft a sign of capitalism? Or is there an art movement I'm missing? Examples: Jeans, lack of design, handwork, vibrant colors and fabrics.

Specifically thinking of this within the context of India where handwork and the textile industry, which had long been a source of income for a large part of the economy, was eradicated, in the 1860s, during British Colonialism.

I'm looking for a book about socialism which reviews socialist countries and empires honestly and in depth. Highlighting ways they worked, why they failed (if they did), How they came to be, and what problems or struggles they encountered. It is really important to me that the book is honest about things like American Empires interference while simultaneously not pretending that socialist countries are utopias.

I want an understanding not an idealization and I don't want to feel like I'm reading propaganda but rather that I'm reading political history through the eyes of moral progressivism. The most important thing to me is an end to oppression and, it's important that the book does not ignore this, but rather explores how to combat this and create a more equitable society for marginalized communities within the bounds of socialism.

I would like to explore how we can have a socialist country which liberates LGBTQ people and treats it's indigenous communities with respect. And how different forms of revolution effected the people involved. I do not want a book that glorifies Chavism.

one part of my family (two people) own 25% of a company i dont wanna go into any numbers but a person can live very comfortably of a few percentages of that company and around my whoel close family we own multiple homes (apartments and houses) the thing is I'm extremely against land lords but selling it when I inherit in will most likely jsut let it go into another landlords hands no? Same thing with the company percentages if I get rid of them from me personally those workers dont get liberated it just gets moved what do you think also this isn't a current issue jsut thinking and pondering alr

Im sorry if this is the wrong subreddit to ask

I looked it up on youtube but most of the videos seemed very biased

So any videos that aren't biased? Also it doesn't have to be about africa in general it could be about any specific country in africa.

I don’t know much about Transnistria besides the fact it has a hammer and sickle on its flag and what I’ve been told by the establishment liberal media.

Also, I’m sure there’s no “consensus” on it because leftists love infighting, I just didn’t know what better word to use. I suppose I’m merely asking about your individual thoughts on the matter. That’s partly why I chose this sub, since I’ve seen all kinds of self-proclaimed leftists here - from people best described as liberals to Trotskyists, Marxist-Leninists and Dengists.

By the way, I’ve looked it up to see if this question had been asked here beforehand, and I was only able to find a single post from 7 years ago.

There is something on my mind. As we can see, athletes, actors etc. earn many times more than workers who are crushed under heavy conditions. Now, should we show our anger toward these people as well, since they are just taking advantage of the opportunities capitalism offers? Because these people might end up in a position where they can employ workers themselves tomorrow. I know they are being exploited to some extent, but seriously, the possibility of making money from money using that capital is massive. As for another topic, OnlyFans, there is no condition forcing you to follow a different system compared to the others; you produce content with your own tools whenever and at whatever hours you want. I would appreciate it if you could write down how you evaluate this as well.

On facebook, on far right pages talking pro flock and pro israel are getting RATIOED. I mean, 10000k laughing emojis, 8k angry faces, and only like 300 likes. Americans seem to be able to unite around the de-flock movement. Actual communists must form at least small groups and take credit for taking some down (actually do it) and dont call yourselves "leftists", say COMMUNIST or at least socialist. Call it direct action against the authoritarian state. Do not allow democrats to try to take back over and give us crumbs. We need to really seize this moment to gain a lot of gen Z people who think they are right wing, but really are just misinformed.

I have heard a version about growing corruption in bolshevik party since 30s and later, and about Khrushchev being trotskist. Is it simplified version?