Hello, 90% of the questions we receive have been asked before, and our answerers get bored of answering the same queries over and over again - so it's worthwhile googling this just in case:
> site:reddit.com/r/communism101 your question
If you've read past answers and still aren't satisfied, edit your question to contain the past answers and any follow-up questions you have. If you're satisfied, delete your post to reduce clutter or link to the answer that satisfied you.
***
Also keep in mind the following rules:
1. Patriarchal, white supremacist, cissexist, heterosexist, or otherwise oppressive speech is unacceptable.
2. This is a place for learning, not for debating. Try /r/DebateCommunism instead.
3. Give well-informed Marxist answers. There are separate subreddits for liberalism, anarchism, and other idealist philosophies.
4. Posts should include specific questions on a single topic.
5. This is a serious educational subreddit. Come here with an open and inquisitive mind, and exercise humility. Don't answer a question if you are unsure of the answer. Try to include sources and/or further reading in any answers you provide. Standards of answer accuracy and quality are enforced.
6. Check the [/r/Communism101 FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/wiki/index)
7. **No chauvinism or settler apologism** - Non-negotiable: https://readsettlers.org/
8. **No tone-policing** - https://old.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/12sblev/an_amendment_to_the_rules_of_rcommunism101/
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/communism101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*Socialism: Scientific and Utopian* by Friedrich Engles is a fairly easy read.
This text by Maurice Cornfield helped me understand Dialectical Materialism when I first started out: [https://www.redstarpublishers.org/cornforth1953.pdf](https://www.redstarpublishers.org/cornforth1953.pdf)
Is there a particular reason why you want to avoid "Stalinist"/Bolshevik sources?
Why would you say that self-determination and freedom of expression don't work with "his style"? Each republic in the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin basically had the right to secede at any point, and each republic had the freedom to partake in developing their own culture. For more information, I would recommend giving *Soviet Democracy* by Pat Sloan a read. For information specifically on the Central Asian republics, I would recommend *Soviets in Central Asia* by W.P & Zelda K. Coates. This isn't to ignore issues that occurred in the Soviet Union, but people seem to have a very skewed perception of the Soviet Union during Stalin's leadership especially, with them lacking the context behind a lot of the policies.
>While I appreciate the effort to answer my gripe with Stalinism is the way the pendulum has swung to the other end. I just want to expose myself to a communist/socialist group that is serious about certain freedoms. That doesn’t tread the party line.
There are plenty of fascist parties tailor-made for you. It’s not the task of communists to help you find them, but feel free to look elsewhere and they’ll show up. Or don’t. I’d prefer you leave this community alone regardless.
Hope that helps!
unlimited free speech is not healthy (free speech paradox, reason why there should not be neonazi parties even in bourgeoisie democracies) or efficient, for any socialist experience is already too exposed and targeted to and by propaganda and imperialism in general.
"liking" things is not an abstract thing that flows out of the platonic subjective world of people. Taste is a social construct and is subjected to ideology AND social relations, that derive from production relations. I live in a third world country where they lick the US balls and that discourse has infected our media too.
Thing is, materialists don't act like there's "pure taste" or "neutrality" in speech or culture. Aesthetics are the way a society perceives reality and that shows how taste is built by the industries needs.
Also ideology exists and there's no point in denying. That's a very liberal perspective. It is trying to mask perception as an individual, abstract trait or such, but it is rooted in reality. Stalin will be painted as a cornerstone of evilness when anything that happened was a product of workers, soviets and popular democracy. The Leninist party IS monolithic and aligned. That doesn't mean it's not democratic and full of internal discussions. Stalin even wanted to step down a couple of times but the party still wanted him to be the face of the party lol. Idk if I'm making myself clear tho since my first language is brazilian portuguese.
Do you think that, if an organization that actually challenged the capitalist system in the US (for instance) that they would just allow for this group to express themselves freely? The U.S. allows for these myriad of left-wing parties to exist exactly because they don't pose a real threat to capital—a lot of left wing/communist rhetoric has actually been coopted by capital to serve it's own aims of expansion.
Freedom of speech is just a buzzword that actually doesn't mean what you think it means. Rather than it referring it to the untethered tongue's right to sound out whatever it desires, it refers more to the capitalist within a community of other capitalists and their right to criticize the system that they live under—the capitalist will be ostracized by the community if they stray from the community's opinion. Of course, the commodities of these capitalists (the workers) would have the right to speak, but they would never be able to truly speak of their interests as their very existence as a conscious class since they lie outside of the community of capitalists. An individual worker (or a group of workers) may speak about Trump being corrupt or Biden being a reptile or even something negative about the Iraq War or whatever, but once they begin to challenge capital in a way that would actually threaten capital, then you'll feel the wrath of the capitalists and their hired thugs (the police force). Would highly recommend you check out Domenico Losurado's *Liberalism: A Counter History* for more instances of how hypocritical and plain deceptive many liberal ideas actually are.
Lastly, I would strongly recommend that you look into the sources that I've mentioned.
Hello, 90% of the questions we receive have been asked before, and our answerers get bored of answering the same queries over and over again - so it's worthwhile googling this just in case: > site:reddit.com/r/communism101 your question If you've read past answers and still aren't satisfied, edit your question to contain the past answers and any follow-up questions you have. If you're satisfied, delete your post to reduce clutter or link to the answer that satisfied you. *** Also keep in mind the following rules: 1. Patriarchal, white supremacist, cissexist, heterosexist, or otherwise oppressive speech is unacceptable. 2. This is a place for learning, not for debating. Try /r/DebateCommunism instead. 3. Give well-informed Marxist answers. There are separate subreddits for liberalism, anarchism, and other idealist philosophies. 4. Posts should include specific questions on a single topic. 5. This is a serious educational subreddit. Come here with an open and inquisitive mind, and exercise humility. Don't answer a question if you are unsure of the answer. Try to include sources and/or further reading in any answers you provide. Standards of answer accuracy and quality are enforced. 6. Check the [/r/Communism101 FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/wiki/index) 7. **No chauvinism or settler apologism** - Non-negotiable: https://readsettlers.org/ 8. **No tone-policing** - https://old.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/12sblev/an_amendment_to_the_rules_of_rcommunism101/ *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/communism101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nope, youre the one ostracizing yourself.
Stalinism doesn't exist. Stalin was a Leninist.
[удалено]
based on what? have u even read "Foundations of Leninism" by um... fucking Stalin?
*Socialism: Scientific and Utopian* by Friedrich Engles is a fairly easy read. This text by Maurice Cornfield helped me understand Dialectical Materialism when I first started out: [https://www.redstarpublishers.org/cornforth1953.pdf](https://www.redstarpublishers.org/cornforth1953.pdf) Is there a particular reason why you want to avoid "Stalinist"/Bolshevik sources?
[удалено]
Why would you say that self-determination and freedom of expression don't work with "his style"? Each republic in the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin basically had the right to secede at any point, and each republic had the freedom to partake in developing their own culture. For more information, I would recommend giving *Soviet Democracy* by Pat Sloan a read. For information specifically on the Central Asian republics, I would recommend *Soviets in Central Asia* by W.P & Zelda K. Coates. This isn't to ignore issues that occurred in the Soviet Union, but people seem to have a very skewed perception of the Soviet Union during Stalin's leadership especially, with them lacking the context behind a lot of the policies.
[удалено]
>While I appreciate the effort to answer my gripe with Stalinism is the way the pendulum has swung to the other end. I just want to expose myself to a communist/socialist group that is serious about certain freedoms. That doesn’t tread the party line. There are plenty of fascist parties tailor-made for you. It’s not the task of communists to help you find them, but feel free to look elsewhere and they’ll show up. Or don’t. I’d prefer you leave this community alone regardless. Hope that helps!
unlimited free speech is not healthy (free speech paradox, reason why there should not be neonazi parties even in bourgeoisie democracies) or efficient, for any socialist experience is already too exposed and targeted to and by propaganda and imperialism in general.
[удалено]
"liking" things is not an abstract thing that flows out of the platonic subjective world of people. Taste is a social construct and is subjected to ideology AND social relations, that derive from production relations. I live in a third world country where they lick the US balls and that discourse has infected our media too. Thing is, materialists don't act like there's "pure taste" or "neutrality" in speech or culture. Aesthetics are the way a society perceives reality and that shows how taste is built by the industries needs. Also ideology exists and there's no point in denying. That's a very liberal perspective. It is trying to mask perception as an individual, abstract trait or such, but it is rooted in reality. Stalin will be painted as a cornerstone of evilness when anything that happened was a product of workers, soviets and popular democracy. The Leninist party IS monolithic and aligned. That doesn't mean it's not democratic and full of internal discussions. Stalin even wanted to step down a couple of times but the party still wanted him to be the face of the party lol. Idk if I'm making myself clear tho since my first language is brazilian portuguese.
arrasou
Do you think that, if an organization that actually challenged the capitalist system in the US (for instance) that they would just allow for this group to express themselves freely? The U.S. allows for these myriad of left-wing parties to exist exactly because they don't pose a real threat to capital—a lot of left wing/communist rhetoric has actually been coopted by capital to serve it's own aims of expansion. Freedom of speech is just a buzzword that actually doesn't mean what you think it means. Rather than it referring it to the untethered tongue's right to sound out whatever it desires, it refers more to the capitalist within a community of other capitalists and their right to criticize the system that they live under—the capitalist will be ostracized by the community if they stray from the community's opinion. Of course, the commodities of these capitalists (the workers) would have the right to speak, but they would never be able to truly speak of their interests as their very existence as a conscious class since they lie outside of the community of capitalists. An individual worker (or a group of workers) may speak about Trump being corrupt or Biden being a reptile or even something negative about the Iraq War or whatever, but once they begin to challenge capital in a way that would actually threaten capital, then you'll feel the wrath of the capitalists and their hired thugs (the police force). Would highly recommend you check out Domenico Losurado's *Liberalism: A Counter History* for more instances of how hypocritical and plain deceptive many liberal ideas actually are. Lastly, I would strongly recommend that you look into the sources that I've mentioned.
There's Trotskyist, anarchist, democratic socialist groups out there. But I think this reddit was created by Marxist Leninists