cucumovirus

This article also provides an eye-opening view into the various financial practices used by western capitalists to exploit entire countries.

There were some forms of slaves getting their freedom individually though

Certainly, but I don't think these played nearly as much of a role as class struggle and legal abolishment of slavery, even if the condition of recently freed slaves was on average hardly better than while they were slaves. In the US especially, they were still barred from owning property and were more or less forced into indentured servitude or similar relationships.

I admit, I don't have much knowledge on specific circumstances of slaves in colonies other than the US. The US did have lots of white indentures servants, but they were still treated better than black slaves or even free black people. Even with their contradictory talk of liberty while holding slaves, the laws the US enacted in fear of slave uprisings sometimes ended up limiting what the slave owners themselves could do with their slaves. Not only were free black people prevented from organizing in all ways - even talking on the street among free black people was dangerous at times, education of black people, slave or free, was forbidden because it was seen as dangerous - even when slave owners wanted to educate their slaves, they couldn't. Other laws also affected slave owners limiting what they could do with their slaves and enforcing certain things as mandatory, especially when it came to harsh punishments. Laws forbidding race mixing also prevented slave owners from recognizing any children they had with slaves which they might've wanted to recognize and limits were placed on individual slave owners from freeing their slaves. In their panic and fear of slave uprisings, the "liberty loving" slave owners created a society where even their own freedoms were limited.

I don't think your analysis of the slave-proletariat comparison is quite what is meant by Engels here. Individual slaves that managed to escape did not have a good time, and in most cases did not make it very far. In the US, there were laws in place that mandated all free citizens to aid in the capture and return of escaped slaves and even if someone wanted to be an innocent bystander, they could be charged as helping the slaves escape. Slave relation were very much class relations - take a look at the Santo Domingo/Haiti revolution for example.

I made a comment on the cross-posted version of this post which includes some discussion of the slave-proletarian comparison which you can check out: https://lemmygrad.ml/comment/925271

I think your argument here speaks to and can be connected with a broader phenomenon that we can recognize even before capitalist relations became dominant. The relationship of religion as the opium of the masses that masks and justifies certain exploitative relations in society while at the same time providing benefit to the oppressed as spiritual respite and allowing them to feel good in spite of their material conditions.

Of course, the problem persists and is even worsened in capitalism along with massive alienation. Today in the West, the place of religion was largely taken by consumerism of various kinds and I think that your analysis of the stim industry fits into that nicely. As you also say, we shouldn't attack people engaging in this type of consumerism nor should we focus on individual decisions, but should understand the material conditions that create the need and seek to build a better society where such practices cease to be necessary.

This is just chauvinistic, liberal nonsense. Incoherent screaming about Russia interfering with the supposed "democratic processes" in the West. I'll just quote one of your finishing statements about a country run by capitalists which still has a hereditary monarchy to highlight the absurdity of your entire article.

The battle to preserve the integrity of British politics and protect the nation's democratic soul is ongoing, and it requires the unwavering resolve of its citizens and leaders alike.

Unfortunately, I think most of the libs will just go along with whatever the mainstream view becomes, regardless of contradictions. Not like they really care about any of this anyway.

The substance is the actual thing in reality while the form refers to various ways it's presented outwardly in specific circumstances. Good examples are how the rule of the bourgeoisie is the substance of capitalist states but the form can differ (liberal democracy, military dictatorship, etc.), or how class struggles (substance) take on different forms in different contexts (proletariat vs bourgeoisie, colonized people fighting for national liberation, etc.). On a rhetorical level, liberalism, for example, talks about defense of human rights, equality, and freedom (form) while in actuality (substance) liberalism justifies exploitation, slavery, genocide, etc. which we also see it doing materially.

Your comment here reminds me of Lenin's view of dialectical epistemology and human knowledge in general from his notes where he puts it as eloquently as ever:

Dialectics as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing) — with an infinite number of shades of every approach and approximation to reality, with a philosophical system growing into a whole out of each shade — is immeasurably richer than “metaphysical” materialism, whose main problem is its inability to apply dialectics to the Bildertheorie, to the process and development of knowledge.

(...)

Human knowledge is not (or does not follow) a straight line, but a curve, which endlessly approximates a series of circles or a spiral.

There was, as you might expect, some linear progression followed by transformative leaps.

Absolutely. For me it was firstly reading the Manifesto and realizing that what was described there as bourgeois society was in fact very similar and at its core had the same contradictions as our bourgeois society today. I was already primed for radicalization due to my circumstances at the time. Secondly, it was reading Lenin, specifically State and Revolution where I got a sense of how these things could work in practice. I still didn't really understand dialectical materialism at that point. After some time in this phase I decided to really dive into diamat. Finally understanding it, I would say, was the third and most significant leap for me. After that I kept on reading any Marxist theory that would expand my understanding and help me become a more well rounded Marxist. I even went back to revisit some works I had already read, this time with a deeper understanding. This last part is a life-long process, though - we never stop learning.

Each of these stages do overlap, though—I’m something of a polygamous reader so I tend to have a few works on the go at any one time.

Same for me. I even sometimes end up dropping some works if I'm reading too many or other, more interesting ones. I do try to come back and finish them all, but it doesn't always work out.

I agree with this and think it's a very important point. I always try to tailor my reading recommendations to people based on their current knowledge and positions, especially for the first few works I'm recommending to get them 'hooked' so to speak.

I agree that study guides should be updated and that for a basic study guide that one is a bit long and could be overwhelming. I always like sending people Blackshirts and Reds early on. Everyone recommends Principles of Communism, and for me it was the second work I've read (after the Manifesto) but I don't know how important it really is. It does answer some important questions but for me at least it wasn't that much of an impactful or formative work at the start. Maybe I'm just misremembering but I would like to hear if anyone had similar experiences. I still do like Lenin's Karl Marx and The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism as foundational works but I read those a bit later on so I don't know how they are for someone just coming into Marxism. The Five Essays I do like but I'm not familiar with the Red Deal so I can't comment on it. Also something like State and Revolution and What is to be done? are also very important IMO, but the latter needs a bit more context before jumping straight into it I think.

I think socialist history is in good part already covered through Marxist theory in general. Imperialism is definitely important but I don't know which works I would recommend apart from Lenin's. I don't know what the best book about modern day imperialism is. I know there is work by Michael Hudson, Zak Cope, Samir Amin, Emmanuel Arghiri, etc. but I don't know which I would recommend.

More and more I think Losurdo should be included fairly early on. His writings on a lot of topics are very clarifying, even for more advanced Marxists, and I think should be studied more widely. Maybe a good start would even be some articles like this one? Again, I guess it depends on where the person is coming from.

You're replying to a comment about a lot more than just space travel. Those things are absolutely necessary to our civilization. They weren't necessary for all of history because we didn't have them but now we do. We know that there is no abstract civilization in general, each one exists in its historical context. Our civilization today needs all those things. If we just stopped doing them, huge numbers of people would suffer or die due to food and medicine shortages and all sorts of other related issues.