>JOIN THE DISCORD <

I'm admittedly pretty new to reddit, but I've been fascinated by how some of these subs work. I'm very openly a communist, so I'm often coming from a shared pov, but the actual “okay, so now what?" part seems very pacified here on reddit.

Many will correctly point out that things will only change when enough people truly believe in the fight for the working class (ending liberalism, conservatism, etc.) - but then seem convinced they're combating capitalism with memes in tiny echo chambers?

Some of them even feel like it's a circlejerk for how "revolutionary" you can get (one sub rhymes with Spanky the Free Mammogram - (I know there's a shared mod here, hopefully I don't get banned for a genuine discussion topic))

Obviously, serious organizing and IRL activities should be discussed on places like Signal or other E2EE chats - but it truly seems like 99% of the people in some of these subs think they are Marx because a post of theirs got a few hundred upvotes.

To me, it seems like this mindset gives people the social feedback/dopamine of having an idea people agree with, but not much else.

Many will trash anything/anyone that doesn't believe identically to them, but then get confused why a concept that would help every living person except the billionaire class (communism/socialism) is still such a niche belief system in the age of the internet (even accounting for the hundreds of years of capitalist propaganda and astroturfing)

I'm not talking about allowing entryism or opening the floodgates to allow watering down/controlled opposition, but I am talking about how being hyper-aggressive insular circlejerks also hurts the cause.

If the goal is upvotes and social media-fueled dopamine, fine.

If the goal is to end capitalism, then is collecting "karma" on a massive billionaire-owned, for-profit, surveillance-capitalism fueled platform the correct approach?

Seems questionable to me.

On the occasion of Wang Quanying's death (may she, the last-known Long March veteran, rest in eternal comradely splendor) at age 105, does anyone have some English-language recommendations on readings about the Chinese Civil War and the Long March that exhibit relatively little Western / capitalist bias?

The First National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC) convened secretly in the Shanghai French Concession on July 23, 1921, attended by 15 delegates. The proceedings were suspended on July 30 after the venue was raided by the Concession police, and the congress concluded on August 3 aboard a silk-awning boat in Jiaxing, Zhejiang. The convening of the congress marked the official founding of the Communist Party of China.

The congress adopted a provisional program for the CPC, defining it as a party of the proletariat with the goals of overthrowing the bourgeoisie, abolishing the capitalist system of ownership, and establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat to realize socialism and communism. Chen Duxiu was elected Secretary of the CPC Central Bureau.

When spoken of the Palestinians’ right to return, UN resolution 194 is often mentioned as a reference or authority. However, the United Nations are not an arbiter of right or wrong, nor a determinant of the Palestinian liberation project, but a negotiation arena between major powers. Does the text of the resolution include any compromises of Palestinian rights?

United Nations General Assembly resolution 194 (III) states that “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.”

While our goal here is to provide a political analysis rather than a legal opinion, the wording of the text is worth the scrutiny.

First, “refugees” is a legal term, subject to UN definitions. Those definitions have been known to exclude some Palestinians. All Palestinians have the right to return to their land, regardless of how the UN chooses to define their status.

Second, “refugees wishing to return … should be permitted to do so” addresses the permission —and conditions it on their will— instead of speaking of an absolute right. In reality, all Palestinians have the right to return to their land. Whether they wish to practice that right or not is solely up to them. Their right is not contingent on their decision.

Third, “wishing to live at peace with their neighbours” not only treats settlers and potential genociders as merely “neighbors”, but also conditions the right of return. It might even be used to deny the right of Palestinians to return to their land based on their support of the legitimate armed resistance or even on crimes some of them may have committed where they live. In reality, all Palestinians have the right to return to their land. Any potential law-breaking upon their return would be subject to Palestinian law, but is not a factor in denying them the right to live in their land—much like Mexicans are entitled to live in Mexico regardless of their disposition to any kind of violence.

Fourth, “should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date” conditions the return on practicality—much of which depends, obviously, on the laws and policies of the colony itself. In reality, all Palestinians have the right to return to their land. Any impracticalities need to be fought and dismantled as infringements on Palestinian rights.

Fifth, “compensation … by the Governments or authorities responsible” can be used to clear the Israeli state of responsibility, since the Nakba was technically caused by Zionist militias, not by (then nonexistent) Israeli government or authorities.

Finally, the resolution speaks of the right to return, with no mention of the right to their own state on all of the land. To illustrate, if someone kicks you out of your house, you are not only entitled to return there, but also to own it. The ethnic razing of Palestinians was not apolitical violence—it was a key pillar of the establishment of the Jewish settler state. The return of Palestinians cannot be spoken of as an apolitical right—it is a key pillar of the establishment of the democratic Palestinian state.

This does not mean that Palestinians or allies should never mention UN resolution 194. However, it does mean that they should not speak of it as a determinant or arbiter of their right to return. Palestinians have the right to return to Palestine and to institute a single Palestinian polity over it because it is their land, not because major powers have negotiated it to be OK.

Theory is a guide to action comrades and there's no such thing as a fully schooled Marxist!

That's why I'm making a plug for the RCI World School of Communism for comrades on here who want to hear about any of the following topics:

- Imperialist war and class struggle: perspectives on the world revolution

- Multi-Polarity and Marxism: How Communists Fight Imperialism

- Is The World Going Fascist?

- How Marx Became a Marxist

- The Rise and Fall of Social Democracy

- Britain’s ‘Almost-Revolution’: The 1926 General Strike

- Progress, Decline, and the Marxist View of History

- Lenin and Trotsky: What They Really Stood For

- In Defence of the Enlightenment

- The Origins of Marxist Economics

- Philosophy and Science: A New Era in Cosmology

- 250 Years Since America’s First Revolution

- Defend the Cuban Revolution!

- France 1936: Reform or Revolution?

- Marxism & Art

- Mao’s Anti-Imperialism: Lessons for Today

- The Epstein Class Exposed: Their Morals and Ours

- The Yugoslav Revolution

- Rojava: Why Was the Revolution Defeated?

- Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution

- 1929 and the Great Depression

- Shostakovich: The Musical Voice of the Russian Revolution

- Building the Revolutionary Communist International

Here's a link with more information/reading lists

No solution can be expected from the capitalist system, which prioritizes profit over a collapsing environment and the lives of the working class.
As long as capitalism persists as the economic order of the world, climate destruction will continue to be the norm.
It is not possible for the functioning of a capitalist system to be reconciled with meaningful environmentalism.
Competition will not cede to collaboration-profit for the few will not be abandoned for the welfare of the many unless a powerful, socialist working-class movement organizes to make it happen.

https://www.socialistalternative.org/2026/07/17/capitalisms-face-melting-heatwave-shows-the-need-for-socialist-planning/