Marxists are absolutely leftists. Fascism is Capitalism when it needs to violently defend itself, meanwhile Marxist movements throughout history have established Socialist systems that dramatically improved the lives of the working class. I suggest you read Blackshirts and Reds, Marxist movements and fascist movements are in no way similar and Dr. Michael Parenti does a great job analyzing them historically.

I don’t really see how that’s a problem for Communism. People go without megamansions all the time in Capitalism, and it isn’t just those who can afford them that want them. Satisfying a much larger quantity of needs is a good thing.

Lmao 😂

People will always want more, Communism isn’t a vow of poverty, it readily acknowledges that production will continue to improve when Humanity has become Capital’s master, rather than its slave.

The structure of society largely depends on the mode of production. As production advances well into Communism, it would likely flatten more and more, though administration and whatnot may still continue to exist.

🤗 (which one of us would be which, though? Lol)

Love the difference in style between our answers, lmao. I like yours more!

Not exactly. The economic foundations for the abolition of class are in the increasing socialization of production and the decay of market forces lending themselves to collective planning and cooperative functions. That’s the extreme oversimplification, but as these classes fade away so too do the mechanisms of enforcing them via the state. In China’s case, as long as they continue to combat corruption and focus on developing the productive forces, they will regularly develop further along the Socialist road, erasing the contradictions remaining from Capitalism until Communism is achieved globally.

As for the Tyranny of Structurelessness, it’s about why formalizing structures is necessary. I brought it up specifically in the context of vanguardism, the implication being that formalizing a vanguard is better than letting informal elites guide a movement without democratic structures in place.

The abolition of the state isn’t a legalistic choice, but a result of the abolition of class. The abolition of class is an economic result, not a legalistic choice either.

I think you’re confusing the state with all government and structure, which isn’t what Marxists are talking about when we speak of the withering of the state.

If by Imperialism you mean millitant expansionism, no. If by Imperialism you mean the form of economic extraction practiced by countries like the US, also no. The basis for the abolition of borders isn’t one of legalistic matters, but economic redundancy. Borders become more and more unnecessary in more and more interconnected economies, and even become a barrier on progress, ergo they will wither over time much the same way the state would.

Do you have any examples? I’m not aware of this, Marxists generally advocate for a centralized stateless society while Anarchists advocate for horizontalist structures, generally.

Late-Stage Communism must be global, so no, it hasn’t existed yet. The USSR and PRC are examples of Socialist countries governed by Communist parties trying to bring about Communism.

Lmao, I’ve tried to minimize my copy-pasting of comments over time so there’s more links in my comments now, haha.

See my comment here.

Marxists and Anarchists have a different view on what the “state” entails, and what constitutes “class.” The former see the state as an instrument of class oppression, while the latter see it as an institution of hierarchy. The former see class as relations to production, the latter see class as relations of hierarchy.

I recommend reading my comment here where I go over why this is the case, and why Marxists see Communism as a fully publicly owned and planned economy, while Anarchists see Communism as a fully decentralized network of communes, and neither recognizes the other as truly “stateless” or “classless” due to these differences.

It isn’t an argument against that, though. It’s an argument that without Socialism and without anti-Imperialism, it heightens Imperialism and exploitation.

When a market is fully saturated in one country, the only place corporations can move is outward in order to combat falling rates of profit from competition and monopolization. The global process of Imperialism is found when countries in the Global North outsource production to the Global South, using millitary pressure and financial pressure to force capitulation and domination. These Imperialist countries then carve out as much as they can in resources and cheap labor, while keeping these countries under-developed so these prices stay low.

In other words, the average person in the Global North consumes more than they create, while the average person in the Global South consumes less than they create. It’s almost like the Global North is the Capitalist class, while the Global South is the working class.

I recommend reading Lenin’s Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism.

ProleWiki is a good one, as davel posted. I link marx2mao because it has some of the best translations available.

Kinda? I don’t really see what your point is. Material conditions absolutely matter, but it’s also important to understand that the bribes paid to the proletariat in the Global North are comprehensively stolen from the Global South, and are why there hasn’t been a revolution in the Global North but many in the Global South.

You can have all of the above including education and public roads without ruthlessly exploiting the Global South by shifting to Socialism.