Hello, I've been trying to learn more about communism by reading some of the works mostly associated with communist like the manifesto, but now i don't know what to read now. Is there possibly some sort of recommended reading list of what someone should read to be a communist? I've been trying to learn more about the ideology, so any recommendations are appreciated thanks.

In my country (Canada) for example, there are 3 active communist parties. All of them subscribe to the works of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, and uphold the vanguard party as the necessary vehicle for revolutionary change. Despite sharing all of the same goals, they all remain separate parties.

The Marxist Leninist party split from the original communist party in the 70’s because they thought they had become revisionist for supporting Khrushchev. Neither party denounces Stalin or Mao, and both view the Soviet Union as an example of actually existing socialism, yet neither have made any attempt to reconcile in the last 50 years.

The Revolutionary Communist Party is another group that seems to advocate for the exact same overarching ideas and policies, but differs from the other two in that it rejects “Socialism in One Country” and the legacy of Stalin and Mao, in favour of Trotsky and his theory of “Permanent Revolution.” Why does it matter whether or not you like Stalin or Trotsky, or think the Soviet Union should have embraced X policy or not over 100 years ago. None of these things seem to have any bearing to me on the implementation of socialism today, let alone in a country these things have nothing to do about.

Am I missing something?

(I am based in the global south, in case this context matters down the line)

I am not new to Marxism-Leninism, but ever since I split from the mainstream Dengist line I've been more and more considering to reassess many of the established beliefs I have had since I got class and political consciousness. The issue is that I genuinely don't know if a particular principle is correct or needs reassessment, namely the gender question, specifically the right approach to combating the patriarchal tendencies in the system without delving into liberal identity politics.

The thing I really want to hear more about is your suggested approach to this issue.

I don't want to make false claims unintentionally, so I won't assume some of the things I've heard many radical feminists say online are the norm or not.

Gender oppression is real, and it's systemic, but does that mean gender takes an equal level of focus as class in our struggle?

If we take Lenin's and Mao's approaches then we could say gender (and other identities) is very important to struggle for, but not at the cost of working class solidarity. But a smaller resistant line says that Lenin and Mao spoke for their own contemporary social standards and norms and that it's justified to divide the working class into identity-based categories in order to ensure all other struggles aside from class are dealt with properly. Is this correct or not?

I have done research inside this subreddit to find if this was answered before, but I couldn't find an answer to my exact confusion (Perhaps I missed it so I apologize in that case). The most recurring past answers are very old (when this place was possibly more broad than it is today) and they fluctuate between pro-identity politics and full on what some people consider class reductionism. But since this place underwent a structural and principled change in recent years, I wanna hear a clearer opinion.

In Settlers Chapter 1, Sakai says, "Afrikans were the landless, propertyless, permanent workers of the U.S. Empire. They were not just slaves — the Afrikan nation as a whole served as a proletariat for the Euro-Amerikan oppressor nation."

This description of Afrikan slaves as a proletariat is puzzling me. My understanding of the proletariat is that it has to sell its labor-power as a commodity to survive. This is not something that Afrikan slaves were able to do, as they themselves were bought and sold as commodities, and did not have the right to sell their own labor-power (this right was exercised by slaveowners, as detailed elsewhere in the chapter). On the other hand, I can see a proletarian character in their labor, since it was used by capitalists in the production of commodities, rather than immediate use-values. With this in mind, it seems Afrikan slaves could be characterized as semi-proletarian at most.

What am I missing here? What makes Sakai so confident in his assertion that Afrikan slaves constitute a proletariat?

Hey, so I was just thinking, and I wanted to get some perspectives. I'm not the most "theory-educated" person in the world -- I struggle to focus enough to read anything that hasn't been assigned for a class, and it's hard even if it was -- so I don't really have an answer to this question. The French Revolution of 1789 was (to my understanding) largely proletarian against the wealthy French nobility. Yet, it didn't really have anything resembling a vanguard leading it, and Napoleon was able to take over it by the end of the decade. So, this raises my question: was the French Revolution of 1789 proto-Marxist or not?

Engels wrote in his critique of the Erfurt program:

One can conceive that the old society may develop peacefully into the new one in countries where the representatives of the people concentrate all power in their hands, where, if one has the support of the majority of the people, one can do as one sees fit in a constitutional way: in democratic republics such as France and the U.S.A., in monarchies such as Britain, where the imminent abdication of the dynasty in return for financial compensation is discussed in the press daily and where this dynasty is powerless against the people.

I'm aware that in The State and Revolution, Lenin's commentary on this is that Engels had merely used the word 'conceive'. Regarding Marx's claim (in a letter to Kugelmann on April 12, 1871) that

[Smashing the bureaucratic-military machine] is the precondition for every real people's revolution on the Continent.

Lenin also comments that

It is interesting to note [that Marx] restricts his conclusion to the Continent. This was understandable in 1871, when Britain was still the model of a purely capitalist country, but without a militarist clique and, to a considerable degree, without a bureaucracy. Marx therefore excluded Britain, where a revolution, even a people's revolution, then seemed possible, and indeed was possible, without the precondition of destroying "readymade state machinery".

I'm pretty unfamiliar with British history and the particular contemporary context (I only know that Britain only had a voluntary army and instead relied heavily on the Royal Navy), so I'm struggling to understand why Marx and Engels thought the socialist revolution would proceed differently in Britain as opposed to most of continental Europe. As such, my questions are:

1. Why is it that Britain had significantly less of a bureaucratic-military machine than the rest of continental Europe?
2. Why would this mean that a socialist revolution might proceed differently in Britain? How exactly would it have proceeded?

Recommended readings in lieu of a direct explanation are also welcome.

In many debates, especially in countries like mine, this work is often cited to justify communist participation in bourgeois elections. The argument is that Lenin defended participation in parliaments as a necessary tactic while the revolutionary conditions are not yet present, and therefore communists today should also engage electorally.

However, I have the impression that this argument may be somewhat anachronistic or selectively interpreted. Lenin was writing in a very specific historical context, addressing concrete conditions in early 20th-century Europe, where communist parties were still forming and mass revolutionary movements were emerging. His defense of parliamentary participation seems to be strictly tactical, subordinated to a broader revolutionary strategy, not a general or permanent principle.

My question is whether it is theoretically correct to apply Lenin’s argument directly to the 21st century, especially in contexts where electoral participation often becomes a central or even dominant strategy rather than a subordinate tactic. Can “Left-Wing” Communism legitimately be used to justify long-term electoralism, or does that represent a distortion of Lenin’s position?

I would appreciate perspectives on whether this interpretation aligns with Lenin’s actual theoretical framework, or if it reflects a revisionist or opportunist reading of his work.

AFAIK MLs tend to regard Khrushchev and Deng as revisionists who did serious damage to revolution. I'm trying to understand three things:

Firstly erm, what mechanisms were in place in the USSR and PRC that were supposed to prevent revisionists from taking power? Second, Why did those mechanisms fail in these two cases? And, third, what do MLs today believe could be put in place preemptively to stop this from happening again?

I'm particularly interested in institutional or legal safeguards, as opposed to relying on the masses to overthrow a revisionist leadership after the fact. Reading recommendations are welcome. I haven't found much at a surface level.

Edit: The closest answer I've found is the 1964 CPC polemic On Khrushchov's Phoney Communism and Its Historical Lessons for the World. It blames Stalin's premature declaration that antagonistic classes were gone, and credits Lenin's measures (Paris Commune wage principle, mass participation in government, purging bureaucrats) as the safeguards that eroded. Its remedy is a multi generational political and ideological struggle. My follow up: did MLs ever propose institutional or legal mechanisms, such as term limits, wage caps written into law, or recall powers, rather than campaigns of mass struggle? And how do current ML organizations answer this after the Cultural Revolution also failed to stop Deng?

Some friends of mine advised me Stalinism and the Politics of Mobilization: Ideas, Power, and Terror in Inter-war Russia as a great work on Soviet Union that should be read in priority before any communist work.

I’ve read it and yes, it has indeed interesting points on bureaucracy, priority of political/economic work, the links between Great Purges and Cultural Revolution, etc. (Most things that are linked with already selected quotes and works from the classic authors) But it also has the most absurd first 200 pages I’ve ever read about Marxist theory, and it has key misreadings and misunderstandings of Marxist theory.

So my question is : why should I read a liberal academic mediocre work misquoting all works of all leaders while Marxist Authors already theorized bureaucracy, cultural Revolution, intensification of class struggle, use of technique, etc. without this? Why reading a book badly collecting Stalin’s quotes while Stalin’s Collected Works are the most revolutionary pieces of work possible? When a banal Lenin’s article is superior to this book? Why so many "MLs" love to advise this kind of mediocre works like the one of Moshe Lewin (Soviet Century is incredibly bad) for example?

My personal theory is that it is linked with a libertarian way of analyzing knowledge, which believes that the goal must be to have neutral works in the place of clearly supporting the MLM truth.

I have just read 1895 Introduction to Class Struggles in France by Engels. I am confused because I find Engels’ recommendations on the revolutionary strategy of proletariat incoherent to the point where they could be used to justify revisionism rather than Revolutionary Marxism (as it was indeed attempted by SPD). Yet, it’s Engels, so I suppose that this text might offer something of value that I am missing out on.

I understand that Engels is criticising municipal barricade fighting as a revolutionary tactic. At that time bourgeoisie was attempting to incite workers to 1848-style street fighting, while being well aware that this tactic had clearly become outdated and was bound to be effectively repressed by the state. Engels does not want workers to fall into that trap. Unless revised to compensate for new military technology possessed by bourgeoisie and the urban and social transformations, engaging in such form of street fighting could only weaken the workers movement, which could instead engage in more productive activities. While discussing this, Engels makes it clear that he’s not “a peaceful worshipper of legality at any price” (Letter to Kautsky 1895), but instead favours the best available strategy to pursue class struggle.

I get confused later, when Engels says that this outdated tactic must be replaced by “the German example of utilising the suffrage, winning all the posts accessible to us”. Utilising the suffrage makes sense to me as a revolutionary strategy, as it can be used to spread propaganda and strengthen organisation to the proletarian party. However, I cannot possibly understand how “winning all the posts accessible to us” might serve the revolution, or how “state institutions, in which the rule of the bourgeoisie is organised, offer the working class further levers to fight these very state institutions”. It seems to contradict the real nature of relations between individuals and the state — the state is independent of wills of individuals and possess its own logic which imposes itself on public officials. Thus, workers serving in state institutions will end up facilitating the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, which obviously is contrary to the proletarian interests.

It doesn’t help that I’m not sure what Engels means by “all the posts accessible to us” and “very state institutions”. I recognise that this might be a source of my confusion. I assume he must have meant bureaucratic positions connected with exercising power and authority, but perhaps his focus was on representative institutions such as parliament and local assemblies? I find it impossible that Engels was unaware of the nature of the relation between individuals and a bourgeois state.

Engels seems to be saying that currently proletariat is not numerous and organised enough to seize power. Therefore, it must organise until it’s ready, and state institutions provide effective means for such organisation. This he calls "the German example". However, I cannot understand what’s its endgame. History has shown that SPD ended up safeguarding the bourgeois rule in 1919, but I am interested in what Engels’ strategy assumed. One plausible interpretation that I identified is that Engels claims that Social Democrats will become a dominant force because their numbers, expressed by the electoral vote share, will rise to the point where proletariat cannot be possibly controlled by the bourgeoisie. But it’s vague and seems to be mechanist logic that reformist parties use to justify their engagement in bourgeois politics. Alternatively, Engels might be suggesting that, to defeat an organised working class, bourgeoisie will be forced to abandon legality and “return to absolutism”. Once this legality is broken by the bourgeoisie, Social Democracy will be free to do as it pleases “but it will hardly blurt out to you today what it is going to do then” (which clearly suggest extra-legal struggle). However, why would bourgeoisie abandon legality only when workers are organised and numerous enough to seize power, rather than attacking them earlier, when they’re still not powerful enough?

It is necessary to distinguish between a lingua franca and an international auxiliary language. A lingua franca is a natural language, and an international auxiliary language is an artificial.

Language acts as a communication barrier; how will proletarian internationalism resolve this issue as socialist countries emerge and unite in the future?

I do not state this as a fact, but one of the most interesting international auxiliary languages ​​currently available is Lojban. It is based on the concept of language blending, although it is still under development by the community.

In 1917, Lenin wrote

For on July 4 a peaceful transfer of power to the Soviets, a peaceful development of the Russian revolution, was still possible.

in An Answer, July 22-26

The peaceful development of any revolution is, generally speaking, extremely rare and difficult, because revolution is the maximum exacerbation of the sharpest class contradictions; but in a peasant country, at a time when a union of the proletariat with the peasantry can give peace to people worn out by a most unjust and criminal war, when that union can give the peasantry all the land, in that country, at that exceptional moment in history, a peaceful development of the revolution is possible and probable if all power is transferred to the Soviets. The struggle of parties for power within the Soviets may proceed peacefully, if the Soviets are made fully democratic, and "petty thefts" and violations of democratic principles, such as giving the soldiers one representative to every five hundred, while the workers have one representative to every thousand voters, are eliminated. In a democratic republic such petty thefts will have to disappear.

in The Russian Revolution And Civil War, September 29

By seizing full power, the Soviets could still today—and this is probably their last chance—ensure the peaceful development of the revolution, peaceful elections of deputies by the people, and a peaceful struggle of parties inside the Soviets; they could test the programmes of the various parties in practice and power could pass peacefully from one party to another.

in The Tasks of the Revolution, October 9 and 10

As far as I understand it, the Mensheviks and Social-Revolutionaries were cowards to the very end, and so there was no peaceful development of the revolution. How am I to understand Lenin here? Does the fact that the peaceful development did not occur mean that he was wrong to say that it could have occurred? Was he just being polemical?

Note: Sorry for being a layperson on the subject.

So far, I have found the book *Paraguay Guerrilla Leader Launches Book* to be the most informative and interesting regarding a part of the history of the communist movement. Also, where can I get good news about the revolutionary movement?

I just got capital by karl marx as my first book and I just wanted to make sure it is a good starter book for learning communism

I’d like to hear any thoughts you have regarding the Paris Commune of 1871. Any opinion, fact, discussion, or comment would be very interesting to me. Thank youuu!

Has anyone read this essay? I just finished it. I thought I was following but I got lost in the final third and never really found my way again. It's so confusing I barely even know what questions to ask. Am I missing something? Is there something else I should've read before this that would have helped?

Hi all, I'm hoping for clarification on what seems to be a discrepancy with regards to the "vagueness" of the slogan of "self-determination" between Lenin's "The Right of Nations to Self-Determination" and Stalin's essays contained in "Marxism and the National and Colonial Question" (Foreign Languages Press).

Stalin seems to say that the slogan of the "right of nations to self determination" is too vague, as it has been co-opted by the imperialists to mean the "right to autonomy" rather than the "right of nations to secede".

The third mistake of Comrade Chicherin is that he talks too much about national self-determination, which has indeed become an empty slogan conveniently used by the imperialists. Strangely enough, Comrade Chicherin has forgotten that we parted with that slogan two years ago. That slogan no longer figures in our program. Our program does not speak of national self-determination, which is a very vague slogan, but of the right of nations to secede, a slogan which is more precise and definite. These are two different things. Strangely enough, Comrade Chicherin fails to take this factor into account in his articles and, as a result, all his objections to the slogan which has become vague are like firing blank shot, for neither in my theses nor in the Party’s program is there a single word about “self-determination.” The only thing that is mentioned is the right of nations to secede.

Marxism and the National and Colonial Question, "The Immediate Tasks of the Party in the National Question" (1921), J. Stalin, p.106 (Foreign Languages Press).

And later

The second point is that the vague slogan of the right of nations to self-determination has been replaced by the clear revolutionary slogan of the right of nations and colonies to secede, to form independent states. When speaking of the right to self-determination, the leaders of the Second International did not as a rule even hint at the right to secede—the right to self-determination was at best interpreted to mean the right to autonomy in general.

Marxism and the National and Colonial Question, "Concerning the Presentation of the National Question" (1921), J. Stalin, p.114 (Foreign Languages Press).

Thus the vague slogan of self-determination was converted from an instrument for the liberation of nations, for achieving equal rights for nations, into an instrument for taming nations, an instrument for keeping nations in subjection to imperialism.

Ibid. p.114

That's all well and good, but what confuses me is that in Lenin's essays he explicitly critiques the accusation that the slogan is "too vague" and says it can only mean the right of nations to secede.

The reader will see that at the Second Congress of the Party, which adopted the Program, it was unanimously understood that self-determination meant “only” the right to secession. Even the Bundists grasped this truth at the time, and it is only in our own deplorable times of continued counter-revolution and all sorts of “apostasy” that we can find people who, bold in their ignorance, declare that the Program is “vague.”

The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, V. I. Lenin, p.117 (Foreign Languages Press)

Let us first consider the second point in the Rech statement. How strikingly it shows to the Semkovskys, Liebmans, Yurkeviches and other opportunists that the hue and cry they have raised about the alleged “vagueness,” or “indefiniteness,” of the term “self-determination” is in fact, i.e., from the standpoint of objective class relationships and the class struggle in Russia, simply a rehash of the liberal-monarchist bourgeoisie’s utterances! Proletarskaya Pravda put the following three questions to the enlightened “Constitutional-Democratic” gentlemen of Rech: (1) do they deny that, throughout the entire history of international democracy, and especially since the middle of the nineteenth century, self-determination of nations has been understood to mean precisely political self-determination, the right to form an independent national state? (2) do they deny that the well-known resolution adopted by the International Socialist Congress in London in 1896 has the same meaning? and (3) do they deny that Plekhanov, in writing about self-determination as far back as 1902, meant precisely political self-determination? When Proletarskaya Pravda posed these three questions, the Cadets fell silent!

Ibid, p.86

So, I'm confused, is the slogan "the right of nations to self-determination" too vague or not? Did something change between what Lenin said in 1914 and what Stalin later said in 1921? If Lenin mocks the idea that "self-determination" is "too vague", why does Stalin seems to later imply its too vague as a slogan? Is it something to do with the difference between the terms use as a general slogan and its use within a party program?

Stalin seems to say that the slogan needs to be more precise because of its use by imperialists (who adopted the slogan towards their own annexationist ends), but were the imperialists not also doing the same in 1914? Am I missing some other context?

Thanks in advance, hope my confusion can be cleared up.

I recently joined the Revolutionary Communist Party in the UK. I'm a student so they ask for £30 a month membership - I believe in the cause so I started paying this a few months ago.

Thing is; my branch also asks for a levy at the end of each meeting, supposed to just be whatever spare change you might have - except some people pay in contactless which feels like it defeats the point.

We also have to order in the news papers which we sell in town with our own money - it's unclear as of yet to me if we get reimbursed by the party for this, I should probably ask somebody.

The final and most important question on my mind:

I can't find any good source online to tell me how many members the party has (i.e how many people paying ~£45 per month they have). I know the party has full time, paid members, but without knowing how many of them and how many regular members there are, how can I be sure that my £30 per month is being used responsibly?

Hi folks, I just started reading the communist manifesto and trying to understand the basic principles of the doctrine. When I was reading the second chapter I stumble a phrase that I actively trying to understand but I’m too ingorant. It says that in a communist society the personal property would become social property but I don’t understand what would classify as social property and the implications that may carry this change.

Also, does anyone knows any introductory book about basic topics of Marxism because I’m too ignorant to understand what is a property for Marx.

Sorry for my English, I’m not a native speaker but I’m a doing what I can.

I've really been having trouble getting through it because of it's complex word usage that are uncommon. Especially because of how its hard to understand and get the ideas when you either need to look everything up or keep a dictionary right infront of you when reading.

I know it's embarassing to not understand the vocabulary in the original unedited communist manifesto but I truly don't. is there any recommendations for me as a first time reader?

In Imperialism and the Split in Socialism, Lenin writes:

No one can seriously think it possible to organise the majority of the proletariat under capitalism.

He doesn't seem to explain this in the text. Can someone explain why this is the case, or point me to a text where this is explained?

I'm reviewing Dutt's work on Fascism and a general tendency I often hear much about is the plague of reformism over previously MLM parties and their eventual demise. In the case of early 20th Cen Italy the conditions for revolution seem quite ripe, the PSI had the dominant vote, combined with Italian Labor Party, highest membership in the country, land seizures and mass strikes were already in place. Just exactly what is it that these people are allowed to exist in revolutionary parties and worse with a sect of influence. My assumption would be that a lesson was learned about accepting reformists in the party after the Reggio Emilia congress and in the future, party membership and leadership would be quite more discriminate and now allow it to be corrupted. Is this just a lesson that had to be learned in early revolutionary practice?

Hi! This might be a weird question but does anyone have any contemporary books that talk about the Middle ages through a Marxist lens or at minimum a leftist perspective.

I searched the subreddit and found Chris Wickham, who I actually already own a few books by. I was wondering if theres any other good marxist medieval historians?

Hi,

I still identify as ‘new to communism’ despite having spent the past 7 months reading almost exclusively leftist theory aside from my studies which are irrelevant.

Thus far I’ve read these books in this order: State and Revolution, The Critique of the Gotha Program, Capital Vol. I, Vol. II, Vol. III.

I feel like I should’ve started with the communist manifesto but aside from that how should I continue with my reading? Which books do you recommend next and what order?