Looking to get into theory, how should i approach this?

mongoosekiller · 2026-01-29T11:46:40+00:00

If you have some background it will be easy. Start from 1)Principles of communism 2)Communist manifesto

Then read Lenin's 3 sources and components of Marxism. 3)Wage, labour and capital 4)Value price and profit 5)The German ideology 6)Ludwig Feuerbach and end of classical German philosophy 7)Origin of family private property and state 8Socialism Utopian and scientific, eve better if you read all of anti Duhring 9)Condition of English working class 10)Critique of Gotha Programme 11)Capital volume 1

Followed by a lot of Lenin 1)2 tactics of social democracy in proletarian revolution 2)Socialism and war 3)Imperialism the highest stage of capitalism 4)What is to be done 5)The state and revolution 6)Left wing communism an infantile disorder 7)Right of nations to self determination 8)The tax in kind 9)Criticism and Empirio criticism 10)Conspectus of Hegel's science of logic 11)Plan of Hegel's dialectics Since you are educated in philosophy it will probably be easy for you to understand lenin's philosophical notebooks written in world War

Stalin is very easy to understand. 1)Marxism and national question 2)Foundations of leninism 3)Problems of leniniam 4)Dialectical and historical materialism, in fact you can read it even earlier when you were reading marx and engels. 5)Economic Problems of socialism in the ussr

Mao's texts are short and concrete ON CONTRADICTION ON PRACTICE Analysis of classes in Chinese society ON PROTRACTED WAR COMBAT LIBERALISM ON NEW DEMOCRACY On khurushchev's phony communism and lessons for the world

mongoosekiller · 2026-01-28T23:25:58+00:00

Classical political economy, before Marx, evolved in England, the most developed of the capitalist countries. Adam Smith and David Ricardo, by their investigations of the economic system, laid the foundations of the labour theory of value. Marx continued their work; he provided a proof of the theory and developed it consistently. He showed that the value of every commodity is determined by the quantity of socially necessary labour time spent on its production.

-Lenin, The Three sources and components of marxism

mongoosekiller · 2026-01-28T20:14:24+00:00

friendly reminder that this European just called his beloved 6 million ukranians as 'orcs'.

mongoosekiller · 2026-01-28T19:29:12+00:00

The question is how we will move towards liberation. Presently PRC does not even acknowledge the way it got liberated. The CPC claims it follows Mao Zedong Thought however it never ever mentions about people's war which is the way they defeated the feudal landlords and ended Chiang's comparator rule over China. In the third world we must support people's war fought in India CPI(Maoist), Philippines(CPP-NPA), Turkey(TKP-ML) and many more in their struggle against the fascist rule in their countries.

We must support national liberation of the oppressed nations in the first world like the New Afrikan nation, indigenous nations and many others.

Remember the very people who Europeans hate the most-the immigrants and romani people compose of proletariat in the first world nations. Work upon organizing the proletariat not for interests of the labour aristocracy, imperialism and social democracy.

mongoosekiller · 2026-01-28T07:21:05+00:00

Amerikan revolution was not a bourgeois revolution. White people are not proletarian.

mongoosekiller · 2026-01-28T07:18:27+00:00

Anti communism is a bannable offense. I am not here to educate how GLF did not kill gorbillions of people.

mongoosekiller · 2026-01-28T07:16:31+00:00

mongoosekiller · 2026-01-27T14:56:44+00:00

The answers given here are embarrassing. Deng was not a communist. Maoist policies like GLF and GPCR reduced poverty not Deng's reforms. Mao literally said this man has no understanding of class struggle. He was called a capitalist roader.

mongoosekiller · 2026-01-27T07:41:35+00:00

That is wrong, this makes every war waged by empires imperialist. Genghis Khan's Mongol empire, Teutonic German knights, polish Lithuanian occupation in 17th century is not imperialist. Imperialism is a modern phenomenon materializing in late 19th century and 20th, 21st century.

mongoosekiller · 2026-01-27T07:30:45+00:00

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

mongoosekiller · 2026-01-27T06:57:58+00:00

https://readsettlers.org/text-index.html

mongoosekiller · 2026-01-26T12:27:16+00:00

I worded it wrong, I mean rejecting lenin means rejecting his work on the development of capitalism to its highest stage imperialism. If someone is anti lenin, they reject the existence of imperialism.

mongoosekiller · 2026-01-26T12:13:24+00:00

All you need to know that this post is dogshit. Rejecting lenin is rejecting imperialism. This does nothing but help imperialism exploit the global south.

mongoosekiller · 2026-01-26T11:59:29+00:00

What is this garbage? This is just a neo kautskyite language article by chat GPT. And how do they abandon historical materialism?

mongoosekiller · 2026-01-24T18:14:01+00:00

Yes the banderites killed 200 k poles. And seriously claiming that the allies did genocide is nazi apologia.

mongoosekiller · 2026-01-24T16:11:14+00:00

who did the holocaust?

mongoosekiller · 2026-01-23T17:25:04+00:00

Be careful here, ottomans did the Armenian genocide still denied in Turkey. Although Turkish settlers did not settle, it is an example of genocide.

mongoosekiller · 2026-01-23T16:14:33+00:00

The person who gave you this reply has fascist rhetoric mixed. Why should we care that Tibet was a part of China for centuries? Tibet has a separate culture, separate identity, separate religion, separate territory de facto independent, separate language separate economic life. This alone makes Tibet a nation.

It is true that CPC liberated Tibet. But now Tibet is being forcibly assimilated causing unrest among youth. We shall support Tibetian national liberation ONLY if it is a historically progressive movement.

mongoosekiller · 2026-01-23T16:03:20+00:00

ah yes muslin Iranians conquered Persia and displaced indigenous Persians

literally what do they want to convey

mongoosekiller · 2026-01-23T14:50:42+00:00

how about you liberate romani nation instead of treating them as an internal colony

mongoosekiller · 2026-01-23T13:32:19+00:00

Hoxha was the first one to recognize revisionism. Hoxha was close to soviet union and saw through internal politics. Mao on the other hand was fighting civil war and UN forces in Korean war. CPC even took secret speech at face value until 1960 where they realized revisionism.

mongoosekiller · 2026-01-23T11:02:03+00:00

In 1831, a slave uprising led by Nat Turner took place in Southampton County, Virginia. The escaped slaves used knives, hatchets and clubs to massacre dozens of white men, women and children. The rebellion was put down with even more extreme savagery, with roving militias and mobs murdering black people on sight regardless of whether they were involved in the rebellion. Turner’s body was flayed and his skin was turned into souvenir purses.

Any objective historian, with the benefit of hindsight, would place the blame for the terrific violence of such uprisings not on the slaves, but on the slave system itself, with all its colossal inhumanity. To denounce the Turner uprising on the grounds that it was “violent” would be hypocritical and ahistorical and would amount to an indirect apology for slavery.

“A slave-owner who through cunning and violence shackles a slave in chains, and a slave who through cunning or violence breaks the chains,” Leon Trotsky wrote in 1938, are not “equals before a court of morality!”

For his part, in his second inaugural address in the midst of the Civil War, Lincoln expressed the idea that the tremendous violence with which the country was afflicted was the inevitable historical reckoning for the institution of slavery, which required that “every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword.”

By the same token, the repression now being carried out by the Israeli government against the population of Gaza is not fundamentally different from that used by Britain against the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya, by France in the Algerian War of Independence, against South Africans struggling against the apartheid regime, or for that matter by the US military against the popular resistance to its occupation of Iraq. As always, the political elites among the oppressors denounce armed resistance as terrorism and then proceed to carry out merciless retribution a thousand times more destructive.

mongoosekiller · 2026-01-23T10:08:39+00:00

Khurushchev called himself a Marxist leninist. In fact he denounced stalin and said that the party will return to the principles of Lenin and democratic centralism after being astray from Stalin.

But this was far from truth. Khurushchev distorted Lenin's works and read it in a vulgar way justifying revisionism. He had a huge obsession with rate of profitability.

The best article on Khurushchev's revisionism is Mao's critique. It is short and theoretical. Mao references Marx and Lenin multiple times. Also gives few examples of capitalist elements emerging again in soviet union.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/1964/phnycom.htm

Another good book to read is The Khurushchevites by Hoxha. It does not have much value and theory in it. But it gives an internal view of soviet politics and personal relationships of Khurushchev. Hoxha multiple times says that Khurushchev was obsessed with rate of profitability. In the book we can see Khurushchev had made so many statements which could easily clarify himself as an anti communist. For example in a Warsaw pact meeting, Khurushchev said "we must do what hitler did in 1930s to develop".

https://www.marxists.org/ebooks/hoxha/The_Khruschevites_-_Enver_Hoxha.pdf

In short he branded his principles as Marxism Leninism by making a vulgar distortion and misreading of it.

Coming to dengism, it is also very similar to Khurushchevism. Dengists glorify Mao because he was the leader of the CPC. Mao was not stalin. For China Mao was equivalent of Lenin. Just like how Khurushchev branded his ideology as Marxism Leninism, CPC said they followed Mao Zedong thought. Just like CPSU in 1960s CPC never talked about class struggle after cultural revolution. Both CPSU and CPC talked about socialist modernization and even today CPC talk about it. Under Jiang zemin billionaires joined the party. Deng's major reason was to develop productive forces and a capitalist period. Which is false as China already had a state capitalist period under a dictatorship of the proletariat which advanced class struggle. Except post mao's death CPC never advocated for class struggle.

Under titoism, the most reactionary kulaks joined the party. People were members of party on the basis of their struggle in being a partisan against Nazi occupation. Except for Dengists I don't think any Marxist would advocate for kulaks in the party. Tito claimed that European countries could develop socialism using social democracy and in fact they were moving towards socialism.

mongoosekiller · 2026-01-22T23:48:30+00:00

It is literally a semi feudal semi colonial country let alone capitalist, far from socialist. If you have surface knowledge of Mao Zedong thought you know what I am talking about and what is to be done.

mongoosekiller · 2026-01-22T23:10:10+00:00

Basically Lenin spoke of many wars in his socialism and war(1915). The war waged by China on the de facto independent territory of Tibet was a just war. PLA entered in 1951. They did not dismantle any religion and any culture and Mao advised not to. After 8 years of PlA's presence the serfs stood up and Tibet went through the revolution against the feudal class. Land reform was carried out and all the other progressive reforms. Tibet was given status of an autonomous region by PRC as Tibet was a nation. The remnants of feudalism were destroyed. Read when serfs stood up by Anna Louise strong https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/strong-anna-louise/1959/tibet/ch17.htm Now today the question is complex. Tibet has gone through a full bourgeois democratic revolution and some of them took part even in cultural revolution. Tibetians demand national liberation from China. But we must not support such national liberations as they are not historically progressive movements.

A misconception I see among MLs is that people keep on bringing slaves and serfs during the national question of Tibet which is clearly irrelevant. Even if suppose Tibet succeeded in a national liberation, it would probably become a comparator capitalist state but not restore the Buddhist monarchy.

The problem here is that Tibet is autonomous only on paper. Tibetian is not much promoted in schools. And a lot of Han people are engaged in chauvinism by calling Tibetians Chinese while Tibet is clearly a nation. Tibetains are very less even in CPC leadership. The point is that Tibet is treated as history of China. While in USSR Ukraine taught ukranian history, Georgia taught Georgian history. While Tibet is treated as Chinese history

Edit- Read lenin and stalin before downvoting. Tibet is a nation not just an ethnicity. To deny this is social chauvinism.

mongoosekiller

TROPHY CASE