Yep! I agree, that’s why I put Principles in my list and not the manifesto.

Oh for sure, I’m not arguing against reading it, after all, but just pointing out that it isn’t quite that easy.

It’s more sabotage behavior to call leftists agitating liberals to get them to read theory feds. Rather than trying to provide alternatives to get liberals to read theory, you’re defending liberals against leftists while claiming to be a “real leftist.” That’s wrecker behavior.

That’s why it’s better to join a good org like PSL, so that the working class can actually take charge, rather than walk hand in hand into barbarism. We need to learn from what’s worked in the past to create a better future for all of us, and that starts with proper theory and practice. I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list just for my own use when I try to agitate and educate others. I think that would be a good place for you to start if you haven’t started reading theory yet.

The Principles of Communism is really a nice intro to communist theory, I have it as the first work read in the introductory Marxist-Leninist reading guide I made. That being said, it likely isn’t creating a communist yet, just planting the seeds for one. Education doesn’t have to just take the form of telling others to read theory, explaining concepts also helps, like imperialism.

It’s more that leftists have been discussing and bringing about better societies for centuries, agitating and organizing, so if we want to take things seriously we need to learn from what works and what doesn’t. That’s why I made an introduductory Marxist-Leninist reading guide. It’s to help people new to theory.

Education is still important, because people’s openness to new ideas depends on their current material conditions. As conditions decay, radicalization increases, and so does people’s willingness to get organized and read theory.

Yes? When do you think liberalism came to be?

Huawei is employee owned. Further, it exists in a socialist economy and is subject to state control, it isn’t Huawei that has power over the economy, but the state that has power over Huawei.

I’m sure that’s how you were taught in (presumably) Canada, but that’s not what happened. The Soviets spent the previous decade trying to form an anti-Nazi alliance with Britain, France, etc, who had instead signed non-agression pacts with Nazi Germany. It wasn’t until the eve of wartime that the Soviets agreed to a non-agression pact with the Nazis to buy time before the inevitable war.

The Soviets expected it. The Nazis attacked the Soviets just like everyone knew they would, because the Nazis wanted to commit genocide on the Slavs and because Nazism is inerently anti-communist, and communism inherently anti-fascist, as communism is proletarian and fascism is bourgeois.

Harry Truman, in 1941 in front of the Senate, stated:

If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don’t want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances.

The West wanted the Nazis to exterminate the communists.

Not like everyone else. Capitalists do not work for their money, they exploit workers through paying them less than the value they create.

Incorrect.

Socialism has the state, because socialism isn’t global, and still has private property in the process of being sublimated from the private sector into the public. You cannot simply stroke the pen and legalize full public ownership, the conditions for social ownership and planning need to be developed and built gradually. As there is still private property, there is still the bourgeoisie and proletariat, and thus the proletariat contains ownership of the state to oppress the bourgeoisie.

Communism exists when all property has been sublimated. There’s no need for the elements of society that existed under socialism to keep the bourgeoisie in check, so these wither away, but the development of large scale industry that necessitates administration, management, and planning continues to exist. There’s no state, but there remains “government.”

Marxism is anti-utopian. Communism is not a utopia, it isn’t a formula to create outright. Communism is compelled economically through the development of socialism. As management and administration remains, there is still equal, collective ownership. Complex methods of democracy are built up during socialism, it would be economically impossible to have direct democracy for every single decision to be made in a global economy, hence the need for social planning, administrations, and managers.

You are making a dramatic error by conflating anarchist analysis of hierarchy with Marxist analysis of class, and thus you confuse what Marxists want with what anarchists want. Unless your point is that Marxists aren’t communists, of course, but that’s just deeply silly.

I really suggest you actually read Marx if you want to speak as though you know what Marx actually advocated for, rather than just assuming Marx was an anarchist with different methodology.

No. The state is a representative of the ruling class. In capitalism, the state is an extension of the bourgeoisie, in socialism, the state is an extension of the proletariat. The state ceases to exist when class ceases to exist, and class ceases to exist when all property is sublimated into collective ownership across all of society. Without a state, all that remains of government is what Engels calls “the administration of things.” Social planning, management, accounting, and administration are core functions of large scale production and society that will remain into communism.

I really don’t know why you’re so confident in your stance.

Being exploited in the past does not justify exploitation on your part in the future.

No, it would not. Marxists do not recognize management positions as distinct classes, as they don’t necessitate different relations of ownership. Marxists oppose the state, which is made up of the elements of society that perpetuate class oppression, but not administration or management.

“Government” is not a class.

Since when is communism against administration and social planning? Since when have Marxists said governments are corporations? This is deeply silly.

The overwhelming majority of supply chains are productive, there is no value without labor and/or natural resources. Overproduction is an inherent fact of capitalism, and reducing laborers both reduces surplus value extraction and reduces the potential for profit by reducing the number of customers. Capitalism brutally killing off the reserve army of labor is a way to keep workers desparate and willing to work for as little as possible, it isn’t a way to curb overproduction.

You really don’t know what you’re talking about or trying to critique.

In what manner? You’ve done absolutely nothing to justify the existence of landlords, or private property in general, except hinting at the idea that you yourself may be a business owner or landlord and thus benefit from the system. Why should the majority of society slave away for a system that inherently exploits them, when there are better and more equitable alternatives like socialism?

You haven’t read the article nor have you made an attempt to understand what I’m saying.

Removal of risk facilitates the creation of value, but isn’t value itself. If, for example, it takes 100 dollars of constant capital and 20 dollars of variable to produce 100 widgets, with 10 dollars worth of raw materials being expected waste, reducing that to 0 results in 90 constant and 20 variable, which isn’t creation of value itself but an improvement in the productivity of capital.

Profit through capitalist production, ie exploitation of labor, is stolen value. You can work to improve your material conditions in systems that aren’t driven by profit, selling your labor-power is how the vast majority of people pay for their subsistence, but this isn’t “profit,” but wages.

Again, read the article.

Nothing needs to have the same use-value across all of society. What’s important is that use-values are produced, and sold for their exchange-value on average. There’s no reason to retain the profit motive or capitalism in general as a system. You should read the article I linked. Risk creates no value.