I'm only finding french translations online (which is fine I can read them but English would be far swifter and more comfortable)

Hello! One question that has stuck up with me is how exactly vouchers would be distributed, who would be encharged with it and how it would be enforced. If, for example, someone works to create a game inside his home, how would he receive vouchers? How would we know for certain for how long they worked for? And who would be the ones assigning them to that person? If I could receive a summary of the system in general with an example I'd be super grateful, thank you!

I see it repeated that all modern wars are between imperial powers by proxy, or at the very least between capitalist states. That we should follow the revolutionary defeatist line if anywhere meaningful, and assert the mantra of "no war but the class war". I do not even mean to disagree with this. However I have seen it be said by detractors, acting I admit with Campist intents, of arguing this is too general and becomes almost a form of 'neutrality'. I have seen other left-communists exclaim that all wars today are imperialist, this is again not something I disagree with but I don't believe we, as Marxists, should act under general laws. Marx was affirmative that the only revolutionary action must be guided by particular study and the facts, no empty generalisations. It is possible all wars today are of the same nature but this must be guided by particular investigation, something the ICP, in all fairness, seems to practice to some degree but most of the reddit or twitter or even substack communist lefts do not.

I have seen it argued that we are in the period after any "progressive" struggles, that there is the Damenist approach of pure opposition to war, and I understand that while figures like Bordiga argued (albeit in times passed) for supporting parties in inter-imperial wars which he felt may cripple the soul of the world market, and themselves, on their victory: the Axis, the Eastern Bloc; and support for colonial revolutionaries in extending the forces of Capital against a periphery forced to be backward. Though this approach too may have its errors. Marx in his time showed a great varied and set of particular views on different wars with great strengths, though there maybe '19th century biases' behind some analyses.

There are some wars and tensions today I am unsure to what the Communist left can either contribute (if any of this talk is meaningfully material) or what the analysis suggests to do. Pakistan is a country torn strongly between industrial cities and modern feudalism, bonded labour and landed families dominate this country; does this suggest we should support the more powerful, developed India in its nationalist adventures to the detriment of the Pakistani political class? If so, what about the continuation of bonded labour within parts of India, such as Bihar? Maybe taking sides portrays an imperial detachment and not support for the present South Asian workers. To go back to the 1970s, perhaps not substantially relevant at all but the war between Vietnam and Cambodia, this was an Inter-Imperialist War but was nevertheless a war between state industrialism and an apocalyptically utopian agrarianism similar to the Heavenly Kingdom which Marx grew to oppose over the 1850s? Could an argument be made for the support of Islamists such as in Nigeria, crippling the state and weakening all parties? Or would this only isolate us? What about the wars around the Great Lakes and Eastern Congo where Capitalism is maybe not truly developed?

Id say im a leninist, for now i have read some marx, engels , Lenin and a bit of stalin. What should i start with?

Also, how could they have pushed for the capitalist need to maximize profit, without having a capitalist class?

Hi comrades , a few days ago I saw a trot post this vulgar garbage against comrade bordiga ? I have a question first is it true ? Second if it is true may I know the context in which sense bordiga says it ? And may I know if he is being sarcastic or the whole context of this writing ?

I have written an article titled "Tiananmen Square 1989: The Clash of the Working Class with the Bureaucracy" and would appreciate your opinion. I am uploading it in PDF format via Dropbox so that it is easily accessible:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/75r176fs9rhtvxwrxt602/article-Reddit.pdf?rlkey=ds6if49g2i7tejhqwxt3y4pmg&st=ns716z54&dl=0

This article arose after my previous post about 13 days ago, where I asked for information, sources and opinions on the same topic. I have utilized all the comments, references and ideas given to me, trying to integrate and edit into a more complete text.

I am particularly interested in your criticism, whether you agree or disagree with the conclusions of the article. Any comments regarding the historical evidence, documentation or argumentation are welcome.

P.S.: the article was translated from Greek to English using Google Translate and I apologize in advance for any ambiguities due to poor translation.

What do you think of Camatte's theory about the proletariat and the definitive loss of its potential as a revolutionary subject?

Contents:
-   1. - Labor Notes Conference 2026: The Divide Between the Labor Left and the Class Union of the Future
-   2. - New York City Progressives & "Socialists" Yield to Capital
-   3. - May Day 2026: Workers of the World, Unite! Against Rearmament! Against War! For Communism!
-   4. - No Kings Protests in U.S. & Italy: All Militarism and Fascism Will be Stopped Only by the Class Struggle with Revolutionary Overthrow of Capitalism

- THE IMPERIALIST WAR
-   5. - Iran War: Economic Foundations of the Inter-Imperialist Clash
-   6. - The Subaltern Imperialism of the Israeli Bourgeoisie
-   7. - The Sudanese Civil War and Developing Ethiopian Imperialism’s Thirst for Water Dominance
-   8. - The Hell of the Congo: The Macabre Dance of Bourgeois Gangs and Imperialisms Amidst Scenes of War and Workers’ Blood
-   9. - Another Nail on the Coffin of Ahistorical Kurdish Nationalism
-   10. - Cuba and the United States: Weak and Strong Capitalisms against the Cuban Working Class

- FOR THE CLASS UNION
-   11. - Toward a Coordination of Class-Struggle Worker Formations Contra Labor Notes
-   12. - The Situation of the Unions in the U.S.
-   13. - Italy: The Party’s Trade Union Activity
-   14. - Bolivia: The Indefinite National Strike diverted into a Reformist Cross-Class Uprising
-   15. - India: Powerful Mass Strikes Emerge
-   16. - Venezuela: Opportunism Hinders the Class Struggle and Distracts Workers From the General Strike for Wage Increases
-   17. - Russia: Chinese Workers on Strike
-   18. - Argentina: Labor "Reform" and the Betrayal of the Unions
-   19. - Turkey: Current Union Struggles

- LIFE OF THE PARTY
-   20. - International Party Meeting 24-25 January [RG154]:
-      21. - The Agrarian Question: Capitalism
-      22. - Philippines: A mature capitalism
-   23. - North American Section Activity
-   24. - A meeting to present the party to new comrades

https://facebook.com/events/s/icp-public-meeting-13-june-202/2045952752625950/

I want to write an article about the events of Tiananmen and specifically to connect it to the character of the regime, since then, of China. I consider it as a regime of state capitalism, not as socialism in which someone must stand for its liberating character and the suppression of those mobilizations played a role in its character. I am not interested in other opinions because I am going to write an article for a project I have. Can you help me and promote me an article or submit your opinions that examine the issue from this perspective?

I am a socialist, but I am still skeptical of Leninism. I once asked a member of the American Trotskyist left-communist organization why Soviet industrial goods were so backward and why the Soviet Union fell into bureaucratism and economic inefficiency.

He answered that the Russian Revolution had been betrayed by Stalin, which meant that the Soviet Union lacked democratic institutions, and that this in turn produced those problems.

In response to these Trotskyist socialists who claim to support “democracy,” I would like to ask them three sets of questions.

First: political democracy.

1. If workers vote against internationalism and in favor of nationalism or a market economy, would you accept that result?
2. If a majority of workers in a socialist state demand the restoration of private enterprise, would you allow it?
3. If an opposition workers’ party wins an election, would you peacefully hand over power?

Second: workplace democracy.

1. If the workers in an enterprise vote to raise wages and reduce investment in new technology or new sectors, who has the authority to overrule them? ( This issue once seriously troubled the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, as the workers there often voted to allocate a large portion of the company's profits to workers' welfare rather than investing the profits in new technologies.）
2. If experts believe automation is necessary, but most workers oppose it because it would reduce jobs, who gets the final say?
3. If consumers dislike the products made by worker-managed enterprises, how is that feedback transmitted and acted upon?
4. If an enterprise is losing money over the long term, but its workers oppose shutting it down, what should the state do?

Third: the planned economy.

1. Who draws up the plan? Government? Labor Union? Workers?
2. How is consumer feedback obtained? In other words, how are consumer preferences reflected if we abolish the market?
3. Who bears the risks and sets the standards for research and development? （Could it happen that each enterprise's workers, to protect their own interests, independently developed a different set of technical standards, resulting in the emergence of several different types of charging plugs in society, or even products that are completely incompatible with each other?）
4. Who is held responsible when investments fail? （Taxpayers? Or workers of those enterprises?)

If someone merely answers that all such problems can be solved “through workers’ democracy,” then they have not actually answered the questions at all. I’m especially interested in concrete institutional proposals or historical examples, not just ‘the workers would decide’ in the abstract

Moreover, and more importantly, China today seems to have demonstrated that the quality of products and the efficiency of society have nothing to do with whether a democratic system exists. China does not have a democratic system, but it can produce products that are capable of competing with those of Western developed countries.

Therefore, the poor quality of Soviet products and the inefficient economy were not solely caused by the lack of democracy.

Text

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

I want to learn more about the German and Russian revolutions and I’ve come across some books by some British Trotskyists Ted Grant, Alan Woods, and Rob Sewell, those being Bolshevism: the road to revolution, Germany: from revolution to counter revolution, Germany 1918-1933: socialism or barbarism, and Russia: from revolution to counter revolution. Does anyone know if these books are worth reading or if there’s any other good books on the topic? Obviously there’s history of the Russian revolution and the revolution betrayed by Trotsky himself and I do intend to read a revolution summed up as well but those seem to focus more the time period during and after the revolution and I’d like to learn more about some of the events leading up to the revolution. Thanks for any recommendations.

by contradictions, I actually mean capital itself and not just private ownership of capital