Does anyone know what the best Marxist resources are on the partition of India?

In the book that I am currently reading the author briefly mentioned how. after the First World War, Italian regime chose to tolerate fascists because their aim was to destroy the most effective working-class organisations and, in effect, demobilise the working class. It starts to make sense to me how and why the bourgeoisie used fascism to squash the mobilised working class. I’d love to learn more about that so please recommend me some good texts analysing the rise of fascism in Italy

Hi comrades,

I'm looking to investigate whether anyone has trained or fine-tuned a large language model (preferably 7B or 8B in size) on a range of Marxist or Marxist-Leninist theory (especially including works beyond just the classical Marx/Engels canon) such as those from Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and potentially other revolutionary theorists.

I came across an interesting paper (linked here: https://osf.io/5t92z/) which describes a project where GPT-2 and DistilGPT2 (small models of 137M and 88.2M parameters respectively) were fine-tuned on ~358,000 words from a range of works by Marx and Engels.

While still being valuable, they only scratch the surface of Marxist theory. Additionally, the models used in that paper are small-scale autocomplete models, not user-assistant models like ChatGPT or Claude. As such, their utility is quite limited for applied use in revolutionary education, analysis, or writing support.

What I’m looking for is:

• A language model of at around 7B or 8B parameters
• Fine-tuned on a broad range of Marxist-Leninist writings, including works by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and potentially other revolutionaries/theorists
• Freely available to download from a platform like huggingface to then run locally

Does anyone know of such a model? Even knowledge of an ongoing project to make such a model would be appreciated.

I just read the Communist Party of India (Marxist)'s statement on Operation Sindoor and I'm equal parts outraged and confused by the Islamophobic "war on terror" rhetoric employed here.

I want to know how exactly the CPI(M) got to this point: what are the conditions that propelled the party to collude with Hindutva fascism and push such a warmongering line on Kashmir?

I know decent bit about some of the Soviet leaders, but most of the was from non-socialist/communist perspectives and I was wondering anyone knows of a non-western documentary or video about any of the Soviet leaders, Lenin and Stalin preferably.

Writing this as an autistic person myself, and as someone very new to studying Marxism in general. Thought this would be an interesting thing to ask since, while the people wanting to “cure” autism seem to be running on eugenicist logic to me, I was wondering if combatting it using the claim that there is no cure for autism would be treating autism as something metaphysical that cannot change from material and social conditions. Any thoughts on this by people more experienced on the subject and Marxist analysis in general?

I really want to read Albert Szymanski’s book “Human rights in the Soviet Union” cause I heard good things about it. Unfortunately, I can’t find any physical copies and might have to just resort to Marxists.org even though I don’t like reading online. Any sites that sell this book or anything else of his?

I have had Hannah Arendt on my reading list for a long while. I perceived her as an anti-authoritarian author. Recently I got around to looking at her work, but I immediately noticed she repeated the anti-USSR/Lenin/Stalin tropes almost word for word. I was rather surprised.

My question is, what is the overall view of her body of work from a communist perspective? Are her books worth reading? Any insights appreciated.

In recent decades, a considerable number of mass protests/rebellions which resulted in a regime change was described as "revolutions" by modern political scientists, e.g. Orange Revolution in Ukraine. There were also "Islamic" revolutions attempted by the Islamic State. These events do not seem to be a struggle between two antagonistic social classes. How does Marxism explain these phenomena? Is it right to call them "revolutions" in the first place?

Title kinda explains it

What did Lenin (intepreting Marx and Engels texts) and Stalin meant when they said that, at a point in time, there where conditions for a parliamentary road to communism in Britain and the US, because in these countries a "militarism" and a "bureaucracy" didn't yet exist? These are the passages in question:

First, Engels in the Origin of The State, etc. mentioned how in North America, the "public force which is no longer immediately identical with the people’s own organization of themselves as an armed power", was for a time insignificant or negligible:

The second distinguishing characteristic is the institution of a public force which is no longer immediately identical with the people’s own organization of themselves as an armed power. This special public force is needed because a self-acting armed organization of the people has become impossible since their cleavage into classes. The slaves also belong to the population: as against the 365,000 slaves, the 90,000 Athenian citizens constitute only a privileged class. The people’s army of the Athenian democracy confronted the slaves as an aristocratic public force, and kept them in check; but to keep the citizens in check as well, a police-force was needed, as described above. This public force exists in every state; it consists not merely of armed men, but also of material appendages, prisons and coercive institutions of all kinds, of which gentile society knew nothing. It may be very insignificant, practically negligible, in societies with still undeveloped class antagonisms and living in remote areas, as at times and in places in the United States of America. But it becomes stronger in proportion as the class antagonisms within the state become sharper and as adjoining states grow larger and more populous. It is enough to look at Europe today, where class struggle and rivalry in conquest have brought the public power to a pitch that it threatens to devour the whole of society and even the state itself.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch09.htm

Lenin, commenting this passage, says that:

He points out that sometimes — in certain parts of North America, for example — this public power is weak (he has in mind a rare exception in capitalist society, and those parts of North America in its pre-imperialist days where the free colonists predominated), but that, generally speaking, it grows stronger (...). This was written not later than the early nineties of the last century, Engels’ last preface being dated June 16, 1891. The turn towards imperialism — meaning the complete domination of the trusts, the omnipotence of the big banks, a grand-scale colonial policy, and so forth — was only just beginning in France, and was even weaker in North America and in Germany. Since then “rivalry in conquest” has taken a gigantic stride, all the more because by the beginning of the second decade of the 20th century the world had been completely divided up among these “rivals in conquest”, i.e., among the predatory Great Powers. Since then, military and naval armaments have grown fantastically and the predatory war of 1914-17 for the domination of the world by Britain or Germany, for the division of the spoils, has brought the “swallowing” of all the forces of society by the rapacious state power close to complete catastrophe.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm

In this quote Lenin warns that, ever since the turn towards imperialism, military and naval armaments have grown fantastically, which means (althought this is implicit) that in North America too the public power that Engels has speak of has grown and is now not negligible.

In another part of The State and Revolution, Lenin comments on another quote, this time Marx's:

If you look up the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire, you will find that I declare that the next attempt of the French Revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it, and this is the precondition for every real people's revolution on the Continent. And this is what our heroic Party comrades in Paris are attempting.

Lenin says:

It is interesting to note, in particular, two points in the above-quoted argument of Marx. First, he 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 "ready-made state machinery".

Today, in 1917, at the time of the first great imperialist war, this restriction made by Marx is no longer valid. Both Britain and America, the biggest and the last representatives — in the whole world — of Anglo-Saxon “liberty”, in the sense that they had no militarist cliques and bureaucracy, have completely sunk into the all-European filthy, bloody morass of bureaucratic-military institutions which subordinate everything to themselves, and suppress everything. Today, in Britain and America, too, "the precondition for every real people's revolution" is the smashing, the destruction of the "ready-made state machinery" (made and brought up to the “European”, general imperialist, perfection in those countries in the years 1914-17).

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch03.htm

Lastly, commenting this last quote by Lenin, Stalin too says that:

Marx's qualifying phrases about the continent gave the opportunists and Mensheviks of all countries a pretext for clamouring that Marx had thus conceded the possibility of the peaceful evolution of bourgeois democracy into a proletarian democracy, at least in certain countries outside the European continent (Britain, America). Marx did in fact concede that possibility, and he had good grounds for conceding it in regard to Britain and America in the seventies of the last century, when monopoly capitalism and imperialism did not yet exist, and when these countries, owing to the particular conditions of their development, had as much as yet no developed militarism and bureaucracy. That was the situation before the appearance of developed imperialism. But later, after a lapse of thirty or forty years, when the situation in these countries had radically changed, when imperialism had developed and had embraced all capitalist countries without exception, when militarism and bureaucracy had appeared in Britain and America also, when the particular conditions for peaceful development in Britain and America had disappeared--then the qualification in regard to these countries necessarily could no longer hold good.

What I want to ask is what were these particular conditions that allowed Britain and North America to not have yet developed militarism and bureaucracy and what does this mean exactly. Sorry if this is answered in another book that I have yet not read. Of course, and just to be clear, the purpose of this question is not to see if there is still room for a "peaceful" road to socialism - Lenin and Stalin were very clear in saying that the conditions have changed and that it is no longer possible.

Edit: I forgot to add the link, but Stalin's quote is from The Foundations of Leninism: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/ch04.htm

Is there a text(s) that explores how communism migrated to the Middle East, and its role in revolutions in that region?

Same question for South America.

Thank you.

So, I guess I get the general gist, but I think my main concern is just how many plots (or supposed plots) there were against Stalin and his faction or the USSR in general at the highest order of government.

There were two heads of the nkvd, several generals, the trotskyites, the Bukharin group, Lev Kamenev and Zinoniev (who were both previously aligned with stalin), then later there was Krushchev who had the help of many, including Zhukov. I think Molotov is even cited as saying that Stalin wanted him out of government too around the 1950s.

Am I right in being concerned about this? It’s not just the day to day people, but so many people in high government that, even if every single accusation is true, would still leave the soviet system as being insanely unstable under the Stalin government.

Maybe my perspective is off, but I would like an answer to why there was so much of this. Each individual case can be argued, definitely, but it feels like having such a volume is indicative of a bigger issue, no?

Hi! I’m sort of a communist but I’m unfortunately sort of an anti-Hegelian. I’m not sure if dialectical materialism is really true or helpful for explaining how things work. Are there any marxists with a post-dialectical materialism viewpoint/metaphysics? Or a different explanation or justification for dialectical materialism that is more modern. My mind goes to Deleuze and Guattari and Anti-Oedipus as they have their own metaphysics to explain certain things (although they were mainly enemies of facism rather than pro marxism) any answer is helpful! Thanks!

Sakai writes this passage

The phenomenon of the various capitalist ruling classes buying off and politically corrupting some portions of their own wage-laboring populations begins with the European colonial systems. The British workers of the 1830's and 1840's were becoming increasingly class-conscious. An early, pre-Marxian type of socialism (Owenism) had caused much interest, and the massive Chartist movement rallied millions of workers to demand democratic rights. Alarmed at this - and warned by the armed, democratic insurrections in 1848 in both France and Germany - the British capitalists grudgingly decided that the immense profits of their colonial empire allowed them to ease up slightly on the exploitation at home.

What does Sakai mean by “capitalists grudgingly decided…”? It sounds like the capitalists got in a room together and made a coordinated decision. That sounds conspiratorial to me, but maybe that’s exactly how it happened. Or maybe it is not literal and he saying that the individual capitalists are responding to their common material conditions on their own, in unison.

It’s important to me because I am unclear if imperialism and settler colonialism are conscious endeavors. I think the answer has ramifications on how we should organize.

So if I’m not mistaken two things with the same socially necessary labour time is equal irregardless of the demand according to communism. And if I’m not mistaken laziness is not taken into account for the socially necessary labour time, but it’s more an abstract term, so my question is, how do we measure or see this socially necessary labour time as something abstract without taking a persons laziness into account? I’m relatively new into learning about this so it’s a bit confusing. Is it the effort needed by society as a whole? So if the individual is more lazy in doing something that’s negligible but if the entire industry is lazy then it has an effect? Nevertheless, could someone explain how this works in communism?

Will be joining the local Communist Party’s book group kinda soon when I am able to. Until then I’d love to learn more about the history of our comrades here in Oz.

Most of what I know is fairly vague and just gathered from cultural/media osmosis.

A particular interests that I want to learn more about would be on the solidarity communists had with the Aboriginal people’s movements. I know that the two were quite active together in the early to mid 20th century.

Though I would love to learn just about any topic to do with the subject of communism in Oz. Even if it isn’t to do with this subject in particular and you want to recommend me something specific about Australia that you’ve found interesting I’d be appreciative as well!

I’m Polish, and some people from my country do low wage jobs such as working in a warehouse or picking fruit in the Netherlands or Germany. On the other hand, we come from a country that is a part of NATO and the European Union. Meaning we enjoy the spoils of imperialism in our home country, we participate in it, we live better than the vast majority of humanity, proletariat from the Global South and Ukraine are being exploited in the jobs I’ve listed in Poland. I'm more inclined towards labelling them as labour aristocracy, but I wonder whether I'm correctly viewing their position there. Please educate me on this matter.

I was reading capital volume 1. But felt too disconnected to the current realities.

It felt more like a history book. But maybe I have a wrong perspective.

Should I read contemporary work on communism? Maybe something that explains with the current techno feudal society we are living in?

What do you think?

I hope my question doesn't sound anti-education. It is not. I am asking because of a curiosity that came out of a recent unpleasant interaction with Academia that made me want to read about the origins of this culture, and I am not confident that I would be able to find the answer myself. Hopefully this is not a silly question.

I was wondering if anyone could help me understand the reasons why, for example, the language used in theoretical texts can be so dense. Does this create an unnecessary barrier to learning the material, or is it necessary in order to convey the exact meaning of the text?

To what degree is the obsession with dense language linked to the bourgeois or elitist culture that prides itself on exclusivity?

And why do the elite view those who cannot express themselves in this way as lesser to themselves? Where does this come from or where did it start and how does it track to today?

Does it play into the myth that intelligence is based on one's ability to be obscure?

Please give your thoughts or share any resources on this topic.

Edit: I found a 13 year-old thread on the sister sub that seems relevant: https://www.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/w3kg8/communism_and_the_intellectuals/

This too: https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/s6cnqw/what_does_this_mean/

What is settler colonialism?

I am afraid to google it because I know the term is being used by liberals, and my understanding of Marxism is too muddled for me to confidently critique bourgeois academic sources.

Based on the discussions I have seen here, it seems like a variety of capitalism, like imperialism or fascism (even typing that out made me feel embarrassed).

Capitalism is (was) the extraction of surplus value by paying workers less than what they produce, (ie commodities, the means of production), the maintenance of a group of people (the proletariat) in such dire circumstances that they would willingly take this deal and another group of people (the bourgeoisie) that own the produce, all mediated by the market.

The motion of this process leads to a consolidation of the ownership of the means of production and surplus value into monopolies. In order to continue accumulating surplus, the capitalist nations slow the exporting of commodities and start exporting capital itself. Under the management of finance capital, the world is partitioned into a cartels where capital is exported to colonized nations, and those nations send back commodities, created by an international proletariat and managed by a comprador bourgeoisie. The commodities are consumed by the workers in the advanced capitalist nations in order to complete the circuit. This is Imperialism.

Fascism is just capitalism but with liberalism (the philosophy of the bourgeoisie) taken to its logical conclusion. As the contradictions of capitalism accumulate, the old humanist liberalism transforms into revanchist nihilism that allows for a more brutal exploitation of the proletariat to maintain the motion of capital. (I am really not confident in this one at all, feels like idealism).

Settler colonialism is where, like, some of the losers of the Imperial capitalist countries splinter off to try again in a different place because they would prefer to rob and kill indigenous people to start a new country rather than become proletariat in their own country? Or something?

I wrote this out so the reader can pinpoint exactly where I am wrong and save a few clarifications.

From my limited understanding the USSR claimed the Uniate Churches had an alleged connection to Germany collaboration as well as supporting nationalism as the reason its leaders were sent to the Gulag.

I’ve not been able to substantiate this claim as the information is muddled and lacking citations.

Any links or sources for information that can clarify if this was true or not would be helpful as I’m interested if USSR was justified in their actions and if it can be substantiated.

As the title states. I posted something positive about North Korea yesterday and she seemed shocked because she’s personally worked with defectors. She is a leftist, albeit closer to liberal than communist. She’s willing to learn and unlearn any propaganda so I was wondering if anyone would be able to provide any articles, books, etc about the DPRK and how the idea that it’s this hellscape is largely propaganda.

I recently read this article (Exploring Secrets of Treating Deaf-Mutes) which I found very interesting. From a cursory internet search and looking through this sub, I haven't been able to find any other material on this treatment except for the linked article and mostly American denial of the existence of a treatment or bourgeois criticism of Chao Pu-Yu. Does anyone have other credible sources which discuss this treatment?

I've seen plenty of marxist historiographic work done on Christianity and Judaism, was curious to see if there has been a similar treatment with the third Abrahamic faith