I'm mostly talking about voting in general or possibly volunteer work for this or that bourgeois party. Do revolutionary socialists vote? Why or why not? And to what extent would one involve themselves in such campaigning? (Normally? Obviously everyone is a little different)

Introduction
Marxist theory, since its formulation in the 19th century, is based on the dialectical analysis of the contradictions inherent to the capitalist mode of production. In the contemporary context, marked by global financialization, the structural precariousness of work and the ecological crisis, Marxist thought faces the challenge of reinterpreting these dynamics without abandoning its critical core: the class struggle as the engine of history. This article proposes a reflection on how Marxist categories such as value, exploitation, alienation and accumulation can be updated to understand the metamorphoses of neoliberal capitalism, the emergence of platform capitalism and the ecological limits imposed by the logic of infinite growth.

Neoliberalism and Financialization: Accumulation through Dispossession in the 21st Century
Neoliberalism, far from being a "return" to classical liberalism, is a response to the capital's profitability crisis in the 1970s, articulating itself as a political project to restore class power. David Harvey, in O Neoliberalism: History and Implications (2005), defines this process as "accumulation through dispossession", where public goods, natural resources and social rights are privatized, transforming previously non-commodified spheres into sources of profit. Financialization, the hegemony of fictitious capital over material production, deepens this logic, creating an economy of massive debt and speculation. The 2008 crisis revealed the fragility of this model, but its resolution did not occur through reform, but through the socialization of losses and the intensification of austerity, reinforcing inequality.

Platform Capitalism and the Restructuring of Exploration
The rise of companies like Uber, Amazon and Meta represents a new phase in the organization of work. The real subsumption of labor to capital, described by Marx, now extends to digital territories. The "gig economy" fragments the working class into hyper-precarious individuals, legally classified as "self-employed", but materially subjected to algorithms that control time, productivity and remuneration. Surplus value is extracted not only through the length of the journey, but through the capture of data (the "raw material" of the 21st century) and the externalization of costs (such as equipment and worker health). For theorists such as Nick Srnicek (Platform Capitalism, 2017), this dynamic exposes the contradiction between the technological socialization of production and the private appropriation of its fruits.

Ecology and the Limits of Capital: The Crisis of Social Metabolism
Marx already pointed out that capitalism breaks the "metabolism" between society and nature, transforming both into commodities. Today, the climate crisis highlights the material limits of this system. Jason W. Moore and John Bellamy Foster, from the Ecological Marxist tradition, argue that capitalist accumulation depends on the "external frontier" exploitation of natural resources and racialized bodies, but that frontier is running out. The commodification of air, water and biodiversity (via carbon credits, for example) does not resolve the crisis, as it reproduces the logic of commodification that generated it. The ecological struggle, therefore, is inseparable from the anti-capitalist struggle.

The Reconfiguration of the Class Struggle: Identity, Territory and Resistance
The working class of the 21st century is more diverse and fragmented than that of the 19th century, including immigrants, informal workers, indigenous communities and peripheral populations. Contemporary Marxist theory, influenced by feminists like Silvia Federici and structural racism theorists like Angela Davis, recognizes that class exploitation is intertwined with oppressions of gender, race, and coloniality. Movements such as Black Lives Matter, global climate strikes and anti-privatization rebellions in Latin America reveal that resistance is not limited to the factory floor, but expands to the territory, the body and the digital. The question is how to articulate these struggles without diluting the centrality of the capital-labor contradiction.

The State in the Era of Neoliberal Capitalism: Between Cooptation and Revolution The State, far from being a static "committee of the bourgeoisie", is a field of dispute. Post-war social democracy, which granted labor rights under pressure from the labor movement, was dismantled by neoliberalism. Today, even progressive governments face the trap of public debt and dependence on global value chains. For authors such as Wendy Brown (Undoing the Demos, 2015), neoliberalism transformed citizenship into individual entrepreneurship, eroding the notion of common good. The reconstruction of a socialist project requires rethinking the State beyond reformism and vanguardism, privileging forms of radical democracy and collective control of the means of production.

Conclusion: Beyond Commodity Fetishism: The Urgency of a Revolutionary Project Contemporary Marxism is not dogmatism, but a living tool for deciphering and transforming the world. The current economic, ecological and health crises are symptoms of the fundamental contradiction between the social character of production and private appropriation. Overcoming capitalism requires not only the expropriation of expropriators, but the reinvention of social relations on a non-market basis. As Rosa Luxemburg recalled, the alternative remains: socialism or barbarism. The task of the present is to ensure that barbarism does not win.

This article does not exhaust the debate, but seeks to rekindle the flame of radical criticism in a world where, as Marx would say, "everything solid melts into air."

Fighting fascism requires confronting its root: the capitalist crisis that fuels fear and authoritarianism. The left cannot limit itself to alliances with liberals who prioritize institutional stability over anti-capitalist rupture. It is necessary to build autonomous popular power (combative unions, grassroots movements, mutual support networks) that unites anti-racist, feminist and classist struggles, showing that fascism is not a "rival ideology", but a rotten fruit of the system itself. Anti-fascist direct action is crucial, but without reducing the struggle to the mere defense of bourgeois democracy. Revolution is not made with votes for those who maintain class privileges, but with an organization that attacks the material bases of fascism: exploitation, oppression and alienation. Solidarity, not conciliation.

Recently, I came across comments on this sub, which raised my suspicions: speeches that, under the guise of "Marxist analysis", defended positions strangely aligned with the rhetoric of the extreme right, attacks on intersectionality as a "liberal division", historical revisionism about the origins of fascism and even distortions of Lenin's quotes to justify reactionary policies.

This got me thinking how to distinguish between: 1. Socialists with sectarian or conservative views (e.g. tankies who flirt with authoritarianism);
2. Fascists or real reactionaries in disguise, trying to co-opt radical discourse to sow division?

Did you notice infiltrators in our sub?

So I am a person who doesn’t agree with the actions of the United States military but I plan on joining the reserves. The reason for this is because I recently was accepted for a scholarship for dental school that would pay my living and provide loan forgiveness for the students reserves. My school is going to cost me 600k( not accounting for interest) in total with living expenses but with this scholarship my total expenses would go down to 400k and with the loan forgiveness it would be 150k. I just wanna know if I’m asshole cuz my brother has been saying I am if I do this but I don’t wanna be nearly a million in debt for my whole life. This whole discussion has messed me up and I wanted to know if I’m a-hole and to seek guidance( for the love of god don’t tell me to apply to cheaper school next year I’m already 28 I don’t wanna gamble on a new acceptance ).

Gramsci and Subcomandante Marcos revolutionized the anti-capitalist struggle in different ways. Gramsci, with his analysis of cultural hegemony, showed that power is not only in the State, but in ideological domination and that the left needs to compete for space in civil society. Marcos, with Zapatismo, proved that the revolution can be horizontal, anti-colonial and built from communities, without authoritarian vanguardism. Both teach: socialism will not be a copy of manuals, but a collective creation based on real struggles.

Hey all I've noticed the Independent Socalist Group doing alot in my community and don't know much about them aside from the fact that they might be Trots. Other than DSA and our local chapter of the CPUSA, which sounds like it does some decent work according to people I've talked to, ISG is the only other game in town.

Has anyone worked with them? What was your experience? Frankly I'm a fellow traveler of MLs with an interest in MLM so I'm skeptical of being involved with Trotskyiests. I don't entirely understand why they still exist post 1992.

Good morning Dōshin, 同志

Has anyone read through the three Satio books? -Marx in the Anthropocene, Ecosocialism: Capital, Nature, and the Unfinished -Critique of Political Economy And -Slow Down

I am very interested in his ideas and would like to know more. However I would like a take on how these books relate to each other. Are they all connected? does his thoughts change over the years? Or should I just go for the lastest and I'm good?

Thank you to anyone who takes the time to answer. Buying all three books is a little expensive for me at the moment so would like to know more before doing so, and with my reading list sitiing at over 150 books at the moment time is a factor too.

Marx’s critique of political economy is, obviously, the critique of capitalism, and Lenin the man who made the socialist project a reality - but why are so few others discussed?

Even among mainstream Marxists, there’s Kautsky and Trotsky. Marxian and neo-Marxian economists have existed for over a century all over the West. But if I were to ask questions in say, r/Anarchy101, I would be directed to Proudhon, or Bakunin, or Goldman, or Kropotkin, or Ben Gold, or Kevin Carson, or Le Guin, or Sforza, or…

In a similar way, capitalists point to an equally wide diversity of authors - Smith, Malthus, Ricardo, Mill, Marshal, Hobson, Veblen, and George just to name the pre-Keynesian thinkers. Heck, they also often point to Marx, at least indirectly when considering business cycles and some aspects of growth.

Marx wasn’t a prophet. He was very accurate, but it’s been almost 200 years since he started formulating his critique. His abstract labor theory of value was initially based provee mathematically incorrect by capitalist economists, and then was corrected by later Marxian economists, but nobody on this subreddit talks about the second group - they send people to Capital, the Three Causes and Principles, Imperialism, and What Is To Be Done.

I agree with nationalization of big corporations like Walmart in the transitional stage of socialism and identify as a Marxist Leninist but I’m not sure about smaller businesses, like my local record store for example. I believe that the workers should own it collectively through something like a cooperative and have moderate state regulation, but not full state ownership. Is this still socialism? Would this be able to function? And how would a small business and its owner change after nationalizing it?

I was having a conversation with my family about how in the NHS the doctors practice a lot of “defensive medicine” to cover their back in case of a risk that procedure goes wrong and they get sued. This causes a lot of detachment from the doctors toward patients and a general inefficiency in the diagnosis process. How would this be alleviated under socialism?

Capitalism has never survived without violence: coups in Latin America, embargoes on Cuba, invasions in the Middle East. If you are so superior, why do you need to kill anyone who dares to try another path? Meanwhile, socialist countries like Vietnam and China emerged from poverty without bombs. Where is the true unfeasibility?

Data: USA supported 50+ dictatorships in the 20th century. • Vietnam reduced poverty from 60% to 5% in 30 years.

Thank you in advance. I have been trying to shift my thinking and analyzing issues from an intersectional perspective (that people live at intersections of different social groups, which materially reward some and materially disadvantage others) to a materialistic perspective.

Any resources or videos would be great

Reading Frank Hardy's But the Dead are Many and had the thought that this could be a good genre. Not after cheap spy novels set in the Soviet Union, but good mystey type novels written by commited socialists and with Marxist themes

I’ve seen the subject brought up several times in my (very casual) reading. As far as it’s been explained to me, it creates a place for dissent within the party, while it externally behaves in a unified manner.

If most debate is happening within the party, rather than in the public forum, how could the public be educated enough to make a choice reflecting their best interests or political/moral opinion?

As a subquestion: did the USSR ever return to democratic centralism after War Communism and Stalin’s leadership? Did other socialist nations of the 20th century, especially China, have similar systems?

Planned socialism seeks collective control of the economy via the State, prioritizing social needs. "Market socialism" maintains markets under state regulation, as in today's China. The plan avoids inequalities, but faces challenges of efficiency and bureaucracy. The market boosts the economy, but can reproduce capitalist contradictions.

I've seen many people argue that Social Democracy is just a way to easily trick the working class into a capitalist system and slow the eventual revolution down. But Social Democracies grant people high rates vertical mobility (on a national level), give their citizens more equal and much better education, and speak about social, environmental issues (which in turn shows us the true nature of capitalism) So what do you think? Is social democracy worse or better for the eventual worker revolution, or does it actually slow/harm it?

I would want answers from both an Accelerationist point of view and a Marxist-Leninist view if possible. Sorry if my question is not smart, im a teenager on their learning phase like most of you. Thank you.

I understand that is impossible to know for sure, one way or the other, and that everyone has a different definition for "free will", but I am still curious what everyone's thoughts are.

For me, my disbelief in free will informs my ideas on justice reform. I'm a strong supporter of prison abolition because I believe that even the "worst" people are essentially entirely products of their environment. I believe every case of violent crime is a societal failure rather than a personal failure (keeping in mind that society is made up of people who also do not have free will).

I think this also makes me more forgiving of capitalists, fascists, landlords, settler-colonialists etc. As much as I believe they do great harm, I also believe that they don't have any real choice in being so awful.

What is everyone's thoughts and personal philosophies?

I am imagining a situation where something is proposed to a democratically organized company that will lead to short-term revenue loss, but long-term revenue increases (or one could think of a 'better' product, or better working conditions - point is, short-term sacrifices leading to long term benefits) but, explaining this proposal relies some level of subject matter knowledge (economics, engineering, logistics) that most workers do not have. Is the expectation that the proposers will need to make the proposal accessible to the workers, even if they do not have the requisite background knowledge?

I do not intend for this to come off as elitist - I think anyone could learn about these subjects, I just don't think they should be required. Even in a world where college/higher education is free, there likely are some people who just don't want to participate in it.

What really spurred this question is all this discussion about Trump's tariffs. There were certainly some voters who think that the tariffs would be beneficial (or were just brainwashed by MAGA), but there were also voters who just didn't know what a tariff is. Current voters are not well-informed, why would we expect that they would be more informed in a socialist organization of the economy? Is the assumption that people would participate in more education if it was available and accessible?

I heard from different websites that they’re a mix of Socialism and Capitalism and some say Marxism, but when I look up lists of Socialist countries they don’t pop up. Can someone tell me if they’re Socialist or if they just have more stuff that would be considered socialist. This really intrigues me since the countries seem to be some of the best when it comes to quality of life there.

Of course I know, it is a very personal decision to make, but I’m struggling a lot trying to figure it out what to do. So I (18F) have been in contact with this guy (22M) for a while now, he’s nice and funny, and he asked me out on a date recently, and his intentions are serious. The problem is, he owns a real estate business and is a centrist liberal, I’m a politically active Marxist. I feel like if I started a relationship with him I kinda could betray myself and my ideals. We talked about this, and he says he accepts me for my ideas and that is up to me to accept him for his or not. What is your perspective on politcally-split relationships? Have you ever gone through some similar experiences?

Edit: thanks for all the answers, at this point I quickly figured out I should reject him, I deserve better.

In a land where the vegetables in my garden are more class conscious than the people in my community, could utilizing the IWW, as an organization, promote socialist causes and create lasting class solidarity in the us?

I'll be the first to say it, the IWW will not bring about the revolution. But in a land where merely mentioning the word, "socialist" can result in the loss of your job and potentially result in you getting beaten into the dirt: Would utilizing an organization, such as the IWW, who already have a place in the fabric of american culture help ease people into class consciousness? The IWW is not a very revolutionary org, yet they advocate for direct action and even violent means to obtain their goals. They have an existing organizational structure, take part in direct action, and have some good literature explaining class struggle and solidarity to normies. Furthermore, they have a legacy for having a direct hand in the implementation of the 5-day work week, the 8-hour day, overtime pay, as well as the legalization of labor law in the us.

Should we be fighting for material change in our workspaces even if it's not in direct support of socialist revolution? Does every action need to be done with the words, "Dirty Pinko Commie" written on our foreheads? Would the inclusion of more subtle ways to influence people towards class consciousness aid in our path to revolution?

Revolution is not in my hands; it sits across a river from me. I can see it clearly, yet the rushing water obscures my path. I can't even see my feet. So, I step with caution, feeling the rocks as they move beneath my weight. Would the IWW be a good step towards the other side, or would I be swept downstream?

Im looking for good books on the events of the Russian revolutions and civil war, aswell as any personal perspectives or antidotes from Lenin, Stalin, or Trotsky

Hello Comrades,

A while back I remember reading about how one of Israel’s top military leaders (I believe a woman) publicly shared how Israel runs Gaza like it’s a concentration camp in 2004. I’m having trouble remembering that persons name could any of you assist me in finding out who said it? Thank you so much!

Do you know any good-quality books about development of socialism in nations outside Eastern Bloc?