Comments and discussion at our Facebook Page
A five-minute introduction to Marx's Communism.
By setting out the full range of confusion on the subject of socialism, the report by the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) has provided a good opportunity to both explain and defend the Marxist view on the matter.
However, the "ecological Marxist" John Bellamy Foster at Monthly Review seems to think he was.
Greens believe that the global abundance required to lay the basis for communism is unachievable because of "limits to growth" or "planetary carrying capacity".
Social ownership does not require a dictatorship deciding what we consume, and where we work and live. Nor does it require all economic decisions to be centrally directed; especially not by a dictator.
Health care is not like other consumption and distortions from high tax rates will not be a problem.
The best source is marxists.org. As well as the web version, they also have it in audio, Word, PDF, mobi and prc formats.
What do Marxists mean by socialism and how does it relate to communism?
This is an opinion piece that was prompted by the spectacle of pseudo left academics at Australian universities preventing the introduction of a course on Western civilization. It would have been funded by a conservative organization.
In sum, the left differs from conservatives in wanting to take it to the next level while the pseudo left just want to whine about how European history is nothing more than a saga of injustice.
This is just another instance where Marx and the "Marxists" are not on the same page.
There is nothing about social ownership that prevents the use of a decentralized price system to guide the transfer of goods, or delivery of services, from one establishment to another. And there is nothing about social ownership that rules out having numerous establishments in the same industry all trying different ways to reduce cost and produce better products.
Challenging the view that the Austrian School economists won the socialist economic calculation debate.
Marxism has a key political message that "Marxists" ignore. Capitalism creates the prerequisites for a future classless society, particularly through the prospect of shared prosperity. However, it is then up to us to take advantage of this opportunity and make it happen by transforming ourselves and society.
The “communist” tyrannies in China, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba must be overthrown just like other tyrannies. However, they are of special interest to Marxists. Examining how these counter-revolutionary abominations emerged opens up scope for explaining the nature of the proletarian revolution and the challenges it faces.
The "death of communism" confirms his views.
No. Marxism shows how communism can only emerge from advanced capitalism. It could not be expected to emerge from the backward conditions that existed in regions such as Russia and China in the first half of the 20th century.
What failed was a transition process that only took the first steps before succumbing to the unfavorable circumstances and to bad actors.
Go here for more on this question.
There is a good case for saying that free-market, limited-government libertarians believe in an unrealizable version of capitalism. Indeed, much of the evidence is in their own writing.
A review of the Aaron Bastani book
It has to be a game changer when a book espousing communism is the talk of the town. It has done this by putting the discussion on a firm footing. Communism is luxury for all and the end of toil.
This is a short and very readable piece written by Frederick Engels in 1847 and is a precursor to the The Communist Manifesto.
The altruism of communism is not self-denial but mutual regard.